|
Grover
Cleveland Speech - Message about Hawaii
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
In my recent annual message to the Congress I briefly referred to our
relations with Hawaii and expressed the intention of transmitting further
information on the subject when additional advices permitted.
Though I am not able now to report a definite change in the actual
situation, I am convinced that the difficulties lately created both here
and in Hawaii and now standing in the way of a solution through Executive
action of the problem presented, render it proper and expedient, that the
matter should be referred to the broader authority and discretion of
Congress, with a full explanation of the endeavor thus far made to deal
with the emergency and a statement of the considerations which have
governed my action.
I suppose that right and justice should determine the path to be followed
in treating this subject. If national honesty is to be disregarded and a
desire for territorial extension, or dissatisfaction with a form of
government not our own, ought to regulate our conduct, I have entirely
misapprehended the mission and character of our Government and the
behavior which the conscience of our people demands of their public
servants.
When the present Administration entered upon its duties the Senate had
under consideration a treaty providing for the annexation of the Hawaiian
Islands to the territory of the United States. Surely under our
Constitution and laws the enlargement of our limits is a manifestation of
the highest attribute of sovereignty, and if entered upon as an Executive
act, all things relating to the transaction should be clear and free from
suspicion. Additional importance attached to this particular treaty of
annexation, because it contemplated a departure from unbroken American
tradition in providing for the addition to our territory of islands of the
sea more than two thousand miles removed from our nearest coast.
These considerations might not of themselves call for interference with
the completion of a treaty entered upon by a previous Administration. but
it appeared from the documents accompanying the treaty when submitted to
the Senate, that the ownership of Hawaii was tendered to us by a
provisional government set up to succeed the constitutional ruler of the
islands, who had been dethroned, and it did not appear that such
provisional government had the sanction of either popular revolution or
suffrage. Two other remarkable features of the transaction naturally
attracted attention. One was the extraordinary haste - not to say
precipitancy - characterizing all the transactions connected with the
treaty. It appeared that a so-called Committee of Safety, ostensibly the
source of the revolt against the constitutional Government of Hawaii, was
organized on Saturday, the 14th day of January; that on Monday, the 16th,
the United States forces were landed at Honolulu from a naval vessel lying
in its harbor; that on the 17th the scheme of a provisional government was
perfected, and a proclamation naming its officers was on the same day
prepared and read at the Government building; that immediately thereupon
the United States Minister recognized the provisional government thus
created; that two days afterwards, on the 19th day of January,
commissioners representing such government sailed for this country in a
steamer especially chartered for the occasion, arriving in San Francisco
on the 28th day of January, and in Washington on the 3rd day of February;
that on the next day they had their first interview with the Secretary of
State, and another on the 11th, when the treaty of annexation was
practically agreed upon, and that on the 14th it was formally concluded
and on the 15th transmitted to the Senate. Thus between the initiation of
the scheme for a provisional government in Hawaii on the 14th day of
January and the submission to the Senate of the treaty of annexation
concluded with such government, the entire interval was thirty-two days,
fifteen of which were spent by the Hawaiian Commissioners in their journey
to Washington.
In the next place, upon the face of the papers submitted with the treaty,
it clearly appeared that there was open and undetermined an issue of fact
of the most vital importance. The message of the President accompanying
the treaty declared that "the overthrow of the monarchy was not in any way
promoted by this Government," and in a letter to the President from the
Secretary of State also submitted to the Senate with the treaty, the
following message occurs: "At the time the provisional government took
possession of the Government buildings no troops or officers of the United
States were present or took any part whatever in the proceedings. No
public recognition was accorded to the provisional government by the
United States Minister until after the Queen's abdication and when they
were in effective possession of the Government buildings, the archives,
the treasury, the barracks, the police station, and all the potential
machinery of the Government." But a protest also accompanied said treaty,
signed by the Queen and her ministers at the time she made way for the
provisional government, which explicitly stated that she yielded to the
superior force of the United States, whose Minister had caused United
States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support
such provisional government.
The truth or falsity of this protest was surely of the first importance.
If true, nothing but the concealment of its truth could induce our
Government to negotiate with the semblance of a government thus created,
nor could a treaty resulting from the acts stated in the protest have been
knowingly deemed worthy of consideration by the Senate. Yet the truth or
falsity of the protest had not been investigated.
I conceived it to be my duty therefore to withdraw the treaty from the
Senate for examination, and meanwhile to cause an accurate, full, and
impartial investigation to be made of the facts attending the subversion
of the constitutional Government of Hawaii and the installment in its
place of the provisional government. I selected for the work of
investigation the Hon. James H. Blount, of Georgia, whose service of
eighteen years as a member of the House of Georgia, and whose experience
as chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs in that body, and his
consequent familiarity with international topics, joined with his high
character and honorable reputation, seemed to render him peculiarly fitted
for the duties entrusted to him. His report detailing his action under the
instructions given to him and the conclusions derived from his
investigation accompany this message.
These conclusions do not rest for their acceptance entirely upon Mr.
Blount's honesty and ability as a man, nor upon his acumen and
impartiality as an investigator. They are accompanied by the evidence upon
which they are based, which evidence is also herewith transmitted, and
from which it seems to me no other deductions could possibly be reached
than those arrived at by the Commissioner.
The report with its accompanying proofs, and such other evidence as is now
before the Congress or is herewith submitted, justifies in my opinion the
statement that when the President was led to submit the treaty to the
Senate with the declaration that "the overthrow of the monarchy was not in
any way promoted by this Government", and when the Senate was induced to
receive and discuss it on that basis, both President and Senate were
misled.
The attempt will not be made in this communication to touch upon all the
facts which throw light upon the progress and consummation of this scheme
of annexation. A very brief and imperfect reference to the facts and
evidence at hand will exhibit its character and the incidents in which it
had its birth.
It is unnecessary to set forth the reasons which in January, 1893, led a
considerable proportion of American and other foreign merchants and
traders residing at Honolulu to favor the annexation of Hawaii to the
United States. It is sufficient to note the fact and to observe that the
project was one which was zealously promoted by the Minister representing
the United States in that country. He evidently had an ardent desire that
it should become a fact accomplished by his agency and during his
ministry, and was not inconveniently scrupulous as to the means employed
to that end. On the 19th day of November, 1892, nearly two months before
the first overt act tending towards the subversion of the Hawaiian
Government and the attempted transfer of Hawaiian territory to the United
States, he addressed a long letter to the Secretary of State in which the
case for annexation was elaborately argued, on moral, political, and
economical grounds. He refers to the loss of the Hawaiian sugar interests
from the operation of the McKinley bill, and the tendency to still further
depreciation of sugar property unless some positive measure of relief is
granted. He strongly inveighs against the existing Hawaiian Government and
emphatically declares for annexation. He says:
"In truth the monarchy here is an absurd anachronism. It has nothing on
which it logically or legitimately stands. The feudal basis on which it
once stood no longer existing, the monarchy now is only an impediment to
good government - an obstruction to the prosperity and progress of the
islands."
He further says:
"As a crown colony of Great Britain or a Territory of the United States
the government modifications could be made readily and good administration
of the law secured. Destiny and the vast future interests of the United
States in the Pacific clearly indicate who at no distant day must be
responsible for the government of these islands. Under a territorial
government they could be as easily governed as any of the existing
Territories of the United States."
* * *
"Hawaii has reached the parting of the ways. She must now take the road
which leads to Asia, or the other which outlets her in America, gives her
an American civilization, and binds her to the care of American destiny."
He also declares:
"One of two courses seems to me absolutely necessary to be followed,
either bold and vigorous measures for annexation or a 'customs union," an
ocean cable from the Californian coast to Honolulu, Pearl Harbor
perpetually ceded to the United States, with an implied but not expressly
stipulated American protectorate over the islands. I believe the former to
be the better, that which will prove much the more advantageous to the
islands, and the cheapest and least embarrassing in the end to the United
States. If it was wise for the United States through Secretary Marcy
thirty-eight years ago to offer to expend $100,000 to secure a treaty of
annexation, it certainly can not be chimerical or unwise to expend
$100,000 to secure annexation in the near future. To-day the United States
has five times the wealth she possessed in 1854, and the reasons now
existing for annexation are much stronger than they were then. I can not
refrain from expressing the opinion with emphasis that the golden hour is
near at hand."
These declarations certainly show a disposition and condition of mind,
which may be usefully recalled when interpreting the significance of the
Minister's conceded acts or when considering the probabilities of such
conduct on his part as may not be admitted.
In this view it seems proper to also quote from a letter written by the
Minister to the Secretary of State on the 8th day of March, 1892, nearly a
year prior to the first step taken toward annexation. After stating the
possibility that the existing Government of Hawaii might be overturned by
an orderly and peaceful revolution, Minister Stevens writes as follows:
"Ordinarily in like circumstances, the rule seems to be to limit the
landing and movement of United States forces in foreign waters and
dominion exclusively to the protection of the United States legation and
of the lives and property of American citizens. But as the relations of
the United States to Hawaii are exceptional, and in former years the
United States officials here took somewhat exceptional action in
circumstances of disorder, I desire to know how far the present Minister
and naval commander may deviate from established international rules and
precedents in the contingencies indicated in the first part of this
dispatch."
To a minister of this temper full of zeal for annexation there seemed to
arise in January, 1893, the precise opportunity for which he was
watchfully waiting - an opportunity which by timely
"deviation from established international rules and precedents"
might be improved to successfully accomplish the great object in view; and
we are quite prepared for the exultant enthusiasm with which in a letter
to the State Department dated February 1, 1893, he declares:
"The Hawaiian pear is now fully ripe and this is the golden hour for the
United States to pluck it."
As a further illustration of the activity of this diplomatic
representative, attention is called to the fact that on the day the above
letter was written, apparently unable longer to restrain his ardor, he
issued a proclamation whereby "in the name of the United States" he
assumed the protection of the Hawaiian Islands and declared that said
action was "taken pending and subject to negotiations at Washington." Of
course this assumption of a protectorate was promptly disavowed by our
Government, but the American flag remained over the Government building at
Honolulu and the forces remained on guard until April, and after Mr.
Blount's arrival on the scene, when both were removed.
A brief statement of the occurrences that led to the subversion of the
constitutional Government of Hawaii in the interests of annexation to the
United States will exhibit the true complexion of that transaction.
On Saturday, January 14, 1893, the Queen of Hawaii, who had been
contemplating the proclamation of a new constitution, had, in deference to
the wishes and remonstrances of her cabinet, renounced the project for the
present at least. Taking this relinquished purpose as a basis of action,
citizens of Honolulu numbering from fifty to one hundred, mostly resident
aliens, met in a private office and selected a so-called Committee of
Safety, composed of thirteen persons, seven of whom were foreign subjects,
and consisted of five Americans, one Englishman, and one German. This
committee, though its designs were not revealed, had in view nothing less
than annexation to the United States, and between Saturday, the 14th, and
the following Monday, the 16th of January - though exactly what action was
taken may not be clearly disclosed -they were certainly in communication
with the United States Minister. On Monday morning the Queen and her
cabinet made public proclamation, with a notice which was specially served
upon the representatives of all foreign governments, that any changes in
the constitution would be sought only in the methods provided by that
instrument. Nevertheless, at the call and under the auspices of the
Committee of Safety, a mass meeting of citizens was held on that day to
protest against the Queen's alleged illegal and unlawful proceedings and
purposes. Even at this meeting the Committee of Safety continued to
disguise their real purpose and contented themselves with procuring the
passage of a resolution denouncing the Queen and empowering the committee
to devise ways and means
"to secure the permanent maintenance of law and order and the protection
of life, liberty, and property in Hawaii."
This meeting adjourned between three and four o'clock in the afternoon. On
the same day, and immediately after such adjournment, the committee,
unwilling to take further steps without the cooperation of the United
States Minister, addressed him a note representing that the public safety
was menaced and that lives and property were in danger, and concluded as
follows:
"We are unable to protect ourselves without aid, and therefore pray for
the protection of the United States forces."
Whatever may be thought of the other contents of this note, the absolute
truth of this latter statement is incontestable. When the note was written
and delivered, the committee, so far as it appears, had neither a man or a
gun at their command, and after its delivery they became so panic-stricken
at their stricken position that they sent some of their number to
interview the Minister and request him not to land the United States
forces till the next morning. But he replied that the troops had been
ordered, and whether the committee were ready or not the landing should
take place. And so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893,
between four and five o'clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines
from the United States Steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery,
landed at Honolulu. The men, upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with
double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and
canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and
medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu
was of itself an act of war, unless made either with the consent of the
Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the
imperilled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there
is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the Government of the
Queen, which at that time was undisputed and was both the de facto and the
de jure government. In point of fact the existing government instead of
requesting the presence of an armed force protested against it. There is
as little basis for the pretense that such forces were landed for the
security of American life and property. If so, they would have been
stationed in the vicinity of such property and so as to protect it,
instead of at a distance and so as to command the Hawaiian Government
building and palace. Admiral Skerrett, the officer in command of our naval
force on the Pacific station, has frankly stated that in his opinion the
location of the troops was inadvisable if they were landed for the
protection of American citizens whose residences and places of business,
as well as the legation and consulate, were in a distant part of the city,
but the location selected was a wise one if the forces were landed for the
purpose of supporting the provisional government. If any peril to life and
property calling for any such martial array had existed, Great Britain and
other foreign powers interested would not have been behind the United
States in activity to protect their citizens. But they made no sign in
that direction. When these armed men were landed, the city of Honolulu was
in its customary orderly and peaceful condition. There was no symptom of
riot or disturbance in any quarter. Men, women, and children were about
the streets as usual, and nothing varied the ordinary routine or disturbed
the ordinary tranquility, except the landing of the Boston's marines and
their march through the town to the quarters assigned them. Indeed, the
fact that after having called for the landing of the United States forces
on the plea of danger to life and property the Committee of Safety
themselves requested the Minister to postpone action, exposed the
untruthfulness of their representations of present peril to life and
property. The peril they saw was an anticipation growing out of guilty
intentions on their part and something which, though not then existing,
they knew would certainly follow their attempt to overthrow the Government
of the Queen without the aid of the United States forces.
Thus it appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United States
forces without the consent or wish of the government of the islands, or of
anybody else so far as shown, except the United States Minister.
Therefore the military occupation of Honolulu by the United States on the
day mentioned was wholly without justification, either as an occupation by
consent or as an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American
life and property. It must be accounted for in some other way and on some
other ground, and its real motive and purpose are neither obscure nor far
to seek.
The United States forces being now on the scene and favorably stationed,
the committee proceeded to carry out their original scheme. They met the
next morning, Tuesday, the 17th, perfected the plan of temporary
government, and fixed upon its principal officers, ten of whom were drawn
from the thirteen members of the Committee of Safety. Between one and two
o'clock, by squads and by different routes to avoid notice, and having
first taken the precaution of ascertaining whether there was any one there
to oppose them, they proceeded to the Government building to proclaim the
new government. No sign of opposition was manifest, and thereupon an
American citizen began to read the proclamation from the steps of the
Government building almost entirely without auditors. It is said that
before the reading was finished quite a concourse of persons, variously
estimated at from 50 to 100, some armed and some unarmed, gathered about
the committee to give them aid and confidence. This statement is not
important, since the one controlling factor in the whole affair was
unquestionably the United States marines, who, drawn up under arms and
with artillery in readiness only seventy-six yards distant, dominated the
situation.
The provisional government thus proclaimed was by the terms of the
proclamation
"to exist until terms of union with the United States had been negotiated
and agreed upon".
The United States Minister, pursuant to prior agreement, recognized this
government within an hour after the reading of the proclamation, and
before five o'clock, in answer to an inquiry on behalf of the Queen and
her cabinet, announced that he had done so.
When our Minister recognized the provisional government the only basis
upon which it rested was the fact that the Committee of Safety had in the
manner above stated declared it to exist. It was neither a government de
facto nor de jure. That it was not in such possession of the Government
property and agencies as entitled it to recognition is conclusively proved
by a note found in the files of the Legation at Honolulu, addressed by the
declared head of the provisional government to Minister Stevens, dated
January 17, 1893, in which he acknowledges with expressions of
appreciation the Minister's recognition of the provisional government, and
states that it is not yet in the possession of the station house (the
place where a large number of the Queen's troops were quartered), though
the same had been demanded of the Queen's officers in charge.
Nevertheless, this wrongful recognition by our Minister placed the
Government of the Queen in a position of most perilous perplexity. On the
one hand she had possession of the palace, of the barracks, and of the
police station, and had at her command at least five hundred fully armed
men and several pieces of artillery. Indeed, the whole military force of
her kingdom was on her side and at her disposal, while the Committee of
Safety, by actual search, had discovered that there were but very few arms
in Honolulu that were not in the service of the Government. In this state
of things if the Queen could have dealt with the insurgents alone her
course would have been plain and the result unmistakable. But the United
States had allied itself with her enemies, had recognized them as the true
Government of Hawaii, and had put her and her adherents in the position of
opposition against lawful authority. She knew that she could not withstand
the power of the United States, but she believed that she might safely
trust to its justice. Accordingly, some hours after the recognition of the
provisional government by the United States Minister, the palace, the
barracks, and the police station, with all the military resources of the
country, were delivered up by the Queen upon the representation made to
her that her cause would thereafter be reviewed at Washington, and while
protesting that she surrendered to the superior force of the United
States, whose Minister had caused United States troops to be landed at
Honolulu and declared that he would support the provisional government,
and that she yielded her authority to prevent collision of armed forces
and loss of life and only until such time as the United States, upon the
facts being presented to it, should undo the action of its representative
and reinstate her in the authority she claimed as the constitutional
sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.
This protest was delivered to the chief of the provisional government, who
endorsed thereon his acknowledgment of its receipt. The terms of the
protest were read without dissent by those assuming to constitute the
provisional government, who were certainly charged with the knowledge that
the Queen instead of finally abandoning her power had appealed to the
justice of the United States for reinstatement in her authority; and yet
the provisional government with this unanswered protest in its hand
hastened to negotiate with the United States for the permanent banishment
of the Queen from power and for the sale of her kingdom.
Our country was in danger of occupying the position of having actually set
up a temporary government on foreign soil for the purpose of acquiring
through that agency territory which we had wrongfully put in its
possession. The control of both sides of a bargain acquired in such a
manner is called by a familiar and unpleasant name when found in private
transactions. We are not without a precedent showing how scrupulously we
avoided such accusations in former days. After the people of Texas had
declared their independence of Mexico they resolved that on the
acknowledgment of their independence by the United States they would seek
admission into the Union. Several months after the battle of San Jacinto,
by which Texan independence was practically assured and established,
President Jackson declined to recognize it, alleging as one of his reasons
that in the circumstances it became us "to beware of a too early movement,
as it might subject us, however unjustly, to the imputation of seeking to
establish the claim of our neighbors to a territory with a view to its
subsequent acquisition by ourselves". This is in marked contrast with the
hasty recognition of a government openly and concededly set up for the
purpose of tendering to us territorial annexation.
I believe that a candid and thorough examination of the facts will force
the conviction that the provisional government owes its existence to an
armed invasion by the United States. Fair-minded people with the evidence
before them will hardly claim that the Hawaiian Government was overthrown
by the people of the islands or that the provisional government had ever
existed with their consent. I do not understand that any member of this
government claims that the people would uphold it by their suffrages if
they were allowed to vote on the question.
While naturally sympathizing with every effort to establish a republican
form of government, it has been the settled policy of the United States to
concede to people of foreign countries the same freedom and independence
in the management of their domestic affairs that we have always claimed
for ourselves; and it has been our practice to recognize revolutionary
governments as soon as it became apparent that they were supported by the
people. For illustration of this rule I need only to refer to the
revolution in Brazil in 1889, when our Minister was instructed to
recognize the Republic "so soon as a majority of the people of Brazil
should have signified their assent to its establishment and maintenance";
to the revolution in Chile in 1891, when our Minister was directed to
recognize the new government "if it was accepted by the people"; and to
the revolution in Venezuela in 1892, when our recognition was accorded on
condition that the new government was "fully established, in possession of
the power of the nation, and accepted by the people."
As I apprehend the situation, we are brought face to face with the
following conditions:
The lawful Government of Hawaii was overthrown without the drawing of a
sword or the firing of a shot by a process every step of which, it may be
safely asserted, is directly traceable to and dependent for its success
upon the agency of the United States acting through its diplomatic and
naval representatives.
But for the notorious predilections of the United States Minister for
annexation, the Committee of Safety, which should be called the Committee
of Annexation, would never have existed.
But for the landing of the United States forces upon false pretexts
respecting the danger to life and property the committee would never have
exposed themselves to the pains and penalties of treason by undertaking
the subversion of the Queen's Government.
But for the presence of the United States forces in the immediate vicinity
and in position to afford all needed protection and support the committee
would not have proclaimed the provisional government from the steps of the
Government building.
And finally, but for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false
pretexts by the United States forces, and but for Minister Stevens'
recognition of the provisional government when the United States forces
were its sole support and constituted its only military strength, the
Queen and her Government would never have yielded to the provisional
government, even for a time and for the sole purpose of submitting her
case to the enlightened justice of the United States.
Believing, therefore, that the United States could not, under the
circumstances disclosed, annex the islands without justly incurring the
imputation of acquiring them by unjustifiable methods, I shall not again
submit the treaty of annexation to the Senate for its consideration, and
in the instructions to Minister Willis, a copy of which accompanies this
message, I have directed him to so inform the provisional government.
But in the present instance our duty does not, in my opinion, end with
refusing to consummate this questionable transaction. It has been the
boast of our government that it seeks to do justice in all things without
regard to the strength or weakness of those with whom it deals. I mistake
the American people if they favor the odious doctrine that there is no
such thing as international morality, that there is one law for a strong
nation and another for a weak one, and that even by indirection a strong
power may with impunity despoil a weak one of its territory.
By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic
representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the
Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been
overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for
our national character as well as the rights of the injured people
requires we should endeavor to repair. The provisional government has not
assumed a republican or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere
executive council or oligarchy, set up without the assent of the people.
It has not sought to find a permanent basis of popular support and has
given no evidence of an intention to do so. Indeed, the representatives of
that government assert that the people of Hawaii are unfit for popular
government and frankly avow that they can be best ruled by arbitrary or
despotic power.
The law of nations is founded upon reason and justice, and the rules of
conduct governing individual relations between citizens or subjects of a
civilized state are equally applicable as between enlightened nations. The
considerations that international law is without a court for its
enforcement, and that obedience to its commands practically depends upon
good faith, instead of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal, only give
additional sanction to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction
of it not merely as a wrong but as a disgrace. A man of true honor
protects the unwritten word which binds his conscience more scrupulously,
if possible, than he does the bond a breach of which subjects him to legal
liabilities; and the United States in aiming to maintain itself as one of
the most enlightened of nations would do its citizens gross injustice if
it applied to its international relations any other than a high standard
of honor and morality. On that ground the United States can not properly
be put in the position of countenancing a wrong after its commission any
more than in that of consenting to it in advance. On that ground it can
not allow itself to refuse to redress an injury inflicted through an abuse
of power by officers clothed with its authority and wearing its uniform;
and on the same ground, if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of
being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the
name and power of the United States, the United States can not fail to
vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make
all possible reparation.
These principles apply to the present case with irresistible force when
the special conditions of the Queen's surrender of her sovereignty are
recalled. She surrendered not to the provisional government, but to the
United States. She surrendered not absolutely and permanently, but
temporarily and conditionally until such time as the facts could be
considered by the United States. Furthermore, the provisional government
acquiesced in her surrender in that manner and on those terms, not only by
tacit consent, but through the positive acts of some members of that
government who urged her peaceable submission, not merely to avoid
bloodshed, but because she could place implicit reliance upon the justice
of the United States, and that the whole subject would be finally
considered at Washington.
I have not, however, overlooked an incident of this unfortunate affair
which remains to be mentioned. The members of the provisional government
and their supporters, though not entitled to extreme sympathy, have been
led to their present predicament of revolt against the Government of the
Queen by the indefensible encouragement and assistance of our diplomatic
representative. This fact may entitle them to claim that in our effort to
rectify the wrong committed some regard should be had for their safety.
This sentiment is strongly seconded by my anxiety to do nothing which
would invite either harsh retaliation on the part of the Queen or violence
and bloodshed in any quarter. In the belief that the Queen, as well as her
enemies, would be willing to adopt such a course as would meet these
conditions, and in view of the fact that both the Queen and the
provisional government had at one time apparently acquiesced in a
reference of the entire case to the United States Government, and
considering the further fact that in any event the provisional government
by its own declared limitation was only "to exist until terms of union
with the United States of America have been negotiated and agreed upon," I
hoped that after the assurance to the members of that government that such
union could not be consummated I might compass a peaceful adjustment of
the difficulty.
Actuated by these desires and purposes,and not unmindful of the inherent
perplexities of the situation nor of the limitations upon my power, I
instructed Minister Willis to advise the Queen and her supporters of my
desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing before the lawless
landing of the United States forces at Honolulu on the 16th of January
last, if such restoration could be effected upon terms providing for
clemency as well as justice to all parties concerned. The conditions
suggested, as the instructions show, contemplate a general amnesty to
those concerned insetting up the provisional government and a recognition
of all its bona fide acts and obligations. In short, they require that the
past should be buried, and that the restored Government should reassume
its authority as if its continuity had not been interrupted. These
conditions have not proved acceptable to the Queen, and though she has
been informed that they will be insisted upon, and that, unless acceded
to, the efforts of the President to aid in the restoration of her
Government will cease, I have not thus far learned that she is willing to
yield them her acquiescence. The check which my plans have thus
encountered has prevented their presentation to the members of the
provisional government, while unfortunate public misrepresentations of the
situation and exaggerated statements of the sentiments of our people have
obviously injured the prospects of successful Executive mediation.
I therefore submit this communication with its accompanying exhibits,
embracing Mr. Bount's report, the evidence and statements taken by him at
Honolulu, the instructions given to both Mr. Blount and Minister Willis,
and correspondence connected with the affair in hand.
In commending this subject to the extended powers and wide discretion of
the Congress, I desire to add the assurance that I shall be much gratified
to cooperate in any legislative plan which may be devised for the solution
of the problem before us which is consistent with American honor,
integrity, and morality.
Grover Cleveland
|
