Mr. Stevens to Mr. Foster.
No. 72.]
Honolulu, October 31, 1892.
Sir: In dispatch 71 of October 19 I gave account of the rejection of the new cabinet appointed by the Queen in defiance of a previously expressed majority of the legislature. The deadlock continues. Though two weeks have elapsed since the decisive action of the legislature [Page 186] no ministers have been designated to fill the vacancies. The Tahitian favorite and the Queen still refuse to take the legislative majority and the leading business men of the islands into their confidence. The palace is still thronged and surrounded by the worst elements, and the responsible citizens feel that they are not welcomed as advisors. The Queen and the Tahitian have made several new ministerial slates with one responsible man and three of the other kind; but no responsible man, so far, can be found who will go into the cabinet with the three whom only a minority of the legislature will accept.
Thus there is here, on a small scale, the old historic issue between autocracy and parliamentary responsibility. The foreign adventurers and renegades stand by the Tahitian favorite because he is the instrument which they can use, and he adheres to them because he needs their support. In the meantime the legislature is unable to do business and has been in session only a few hours for several weeks. If that body holds firm, the Queen will have to yield, and a responsible minority would probably be the result. The ultra-English influence is strongly with the half-English Tahitian favorite and the Queen, for the one reason only, that the success of the legislative majority would be the appointment of a cabinet strongly American in sympathy and purpose. There are strong reasons for the belief that were it not for the presence of the American naval force in the harbor the Tahitian marshal and his gang would induce the Queen to attempt a coup d’etat by proclaiming a new constitution, taking from the legislature the power to reject ministerial appointments.
The recent arrival here from England of T. H. Davies, the head of a strong English house in Honolulu, formerly a resident here for many years, has served to intensify the ultra-English feeling and to strengthen the American sentiment. This T. H. Davies having made himself rich under the sugar provisions of the reciprocity treaty, now resides in England and has a kind of supervisory care of the half-white Hawaiian crown princess, for several years and still at school in England. When a resident here at the time the Pearl Harbor provision was pending, Davies strongly opposed that provision. He comes now with revived zeal against the Pearl Harbor concession. It is not thought that he has any encouragement to this course from the home Government of England, but that his course is his own, and that his zeal is increased by the Canadian Pacific Railroad managers, of whom Davies is the agent. The desperate efforts of that road to save itself embrace the scheme of a cable, and Pacific steamer lines to Australia and China, including the design of antagonizing the interests of the United States in these islands. This involves the plan of controlling the Hawaiian monarchy through the present Queen and her favorite, and especially by the having in hand the crown princess, the general belief being that the present Queen will not live many years. Davies, who has this supervising care of the crown princess in England, is a tory. Of course these facts, so apparent to intelligent observers here, are telling on all friends of the United States.
The other of the two principal English commercial houses here, older and nearly as wealthy as those of Davies & Co., is thoroughly Americanized and stands firmly against the efforts of T. H. Davies, and is for the United States on every issue. This house owns several hundreds of thousands (of dollars worth?) of property in Iowa and California, its head being father-in-law of Gen. Dimond, the head of the United States mint in San Francisco.
[Page 187]Perhaps it is well to state that it is the rumor here that the last rejected cabinet, only holding their places until others are appointed, have sent a dispatch to Washington asking the recall of Consul-General Severance. I do not credit this rumor. But influential parties have called at this legation who say that if any such step has been taken by this rejected cabinet, the American merchants and business men, as well as other leading citizens, will send a strong memorial to the Department of State against any such action of a dead ministry. I have not encouraged any such action in our behalf, believing it to be unnecessary. So far I am supported here by all the responsible Americans and others to a degree more than I had the right to expect. This so much the more impresses on me the necessity of prudence as well as of firmness. To keep the Department of State well informed as to affairs here, I deem it well to give these particulars.
I am, sir, etc.,