No. 59.
Interview with Robert W.
Wilcox.
Mr. Blount. Mr. Wilcox, where were you educated?
Mr. Wilcox. Partly in these Islands and partly in Italy, at the military academy at Turin.
Q. How came you to go there?
A. I was sent by the Hawaiian Government.
Q. In what year?
A. In 1880; the latter part of 1880.
Q. When did you return?
A. In 1887.
Q. Are you a native?
A. I am a native. My father is an American, from Rhode Island—Newport. My mother is a Hawaiian.
Q. Then you are one-half Hawaiian and one-half white?
A. Yes.
Q. You came here in 1887. How long did you remain?
A. About four months.
Q. Where did you go then?
A. I went to San Francisco with my wife.
Q. How long did you remain there?
A. About one year.
Q. And then you returned here?
A. I returned about April, 1889.
Q. Was that the year in what occurred what is termed the Wilcox rebellion?
A. Yes; on July 30, 1889.
[Page 1006]Q. You were in what was called the Ashford-Wilcox rebellion?
A. Yes.
Q. In what year?
A. In 1892.
Q. Were you in the Legislature at that time?
A. I was in the Legislature at that time. I was in the Legislature in 1890. I was one of the youngest men from the island of Maui.
Q. Then you have been identified all the while, from 1887, with public affairs in these Islands?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you understand the feelings of the whites and the natives?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the cause, or what were the causes, which led to the dethronement of Queen Liliuokalani?
A. When what was called the Wilcox cabinet was ousted by the House in January—about the 12th—I do not remember the date, and then on Friday a new cabinet was formed by the Queen, composed of Sam Parker, Cornwell, Colburn and Peterson. We met in the afternoon, and members of what we call the Reform party did not come, and we decided that the house should prorogue on Saturday at 12 o’clock. At noon the Queen came in and prorogued the house. A good many members of the house were not there—nearly all the members of the Reform party were not there—and soon the house prorogued. One of the members came to me and told me we were wanted up at the palace. So we all went up to the palace. As soon as we got in there we found a big body of people, what is called Kalaiaina. We stayed in the reception room of the palace, and the English minister was there, the French commissioner was there, the Portuguese minister was there, but not the American minister. He had just come back from Hilo that very morning. So we waited, the Queen was in another room with the ministers.
The rumor was whispered around that there was to be proclaimed a new constitution. The judges of the supreme court, two of them, were there—Chief Justice Judd and Bickerton. Of course we waited there until the foreign representatives went away. We heard the Queen insisted that the ministers should sign and that the ministers would not sign this document. I stayed there until the whole thing ended, because I wanted to know what would happen. We stayed there until between 5 and 6, when the Queen came out and gave a little speech saying she wished to proclaim a new constitution, but was prevented. She would proclaim one in the future if the people would insist upon it. Then we went home. I went out with Mr. Parker and, in the meantime, I heard that they had got up an organization—the committee of safety they called it. I went home and stayed there. I did not care to go into any side, just hold myself neutral.
On Sunday Mr. Colburn called on me. He asked me if I would assist the Government. He said Mr. Thurston had been there and wanted him to sign a document to call the Boston marines on shore and to proclaim the Provisional Government. Mr. Colburn wanted me to help them to stand by the Queen. I told him I had no objection. I would assist them as far as I could. He said their headquarters were at the station house. He went away. I stayed at home. I did not bother myself about the station house.
Mr. Colburn called on me again in the evening. He wanted me to go to their meeting at the Government building. He took me down there. I saw there Dr. Truseau, Mr. Gulick, Mr. Macfarlane, Paul Neumann. [Page 1007] John E. Bush, and Anton Rosa, and some foreigners also were there. They were also consulting over the situation—what to do. Marshal Wilson was there. They stood up and talked. Wilson decided it was proper to arrest the committee of safety, but nobody seconded his motion, and they asked my opinion. I said the only thing was to suppress them before they made any progress. They said they are going to have a mass meeting at the armory on Beretana street, of the committee of safety. Then they came to the conclusion to have a meeting of the people who wanted to support the Government in the square right opposite the Government building, and some one talked about that the Government should proclaim martial law, and stop all these rebels and riots and all that kind of thing. Paul Neumann, who was present, said it would not be necessary; it would only create friction.
I told Paul Neumann that if there was any bloodshed the Government would be responsible for taking such a very weak stand. Paul Neumann said there was a document to be read there to dethrone the Queen, by the opposition party. He said, “that is no treason.” I said, “if that is not treason we had better give up the whole thing.” Then we came to the conclusion to have a mass meeting at the same hour with the others. That was on Monday. I went home with Mr. Bush. He asked my opinion. I told him, “I think you can not do anything. I am not going to get myself in trouble. I would rather be neutral.” So I went home. The next day—the 16th—I was called to make a speech in the meeting. It was merely to get the people to harmonize and keep the peace.
Q. What meeting was that?
A. The meeting of the people to support the Queen’s Government. I did not make a speech. I told the people to behave and keep the peace and order, and they passed a resolution and I was appointed to be a member of that committee to see the Queen. So I went up that afternoon to see the Queen at the palace. She received us. Mr. Parker was there. She detained us a little while. Mr. Parker gave us a little champagne, and when we left there we went out toward the Government building. A native came up and told us the Boston men had landed. We went down to see the Boston’s soldiers, and when we got around to the consulate we saw the Boston’s men marching up. They halted there and divided the men; sent part of them up to the legation. Some stayed, I think, at the consulate. The main body marched up to King street, marched up by Merchant street to the front of the Government building, near the eastern corner of the palace fence. They stayed there awhile and then went as far as Atherton’s place.
In the evening Colburn called and asked me to go to the Government building. When we got there they were talking about the landing of the Boston’s men. I saw the representatives of other countries there. Finally the Boston’s men came back and took a house behind the Opera House near the Government building. They stayed there until the next day. Next day I went down town in the morning. I saw Mr. Damon, the present vice-president. I asked him about it. He told me the best thing was to take no side—neither the Government nor the committee of safety. He didn’t want annexation, he said. He had told me himself about that sometime previous to that. I didn’t take any part. There were rumors around town that I was appointed commander in chief of the Queen’s guard. Many of my friends asked me about it. I told them there was no truth in it. I stayed down the [Page 1008] city nearly all that day. People were running about—all curious about seeing the Boston’s men on shore.
The committee of safety was working hard to enlist men for the new Provisional Government to be proclaimed Peterson came up to me and asked me if I would use my services and see what is called the “Drei Hundred,” a German element—see them and get them to take part in this movement. I said, “What is the situation?” He said he thought he could eucher the American minister, and it would be all right. I said, “I think we are taking a very weak stand.” I was afraid we were going to have bloodshed—on account of the weakness of the Government. I went home, and then went down the city again. I saw a cart coming from E. O. Hall’s. A policeman tried to stop it. Capt. Good, the present captain of the guard, was on the cart. He fired and hit the native on the shoulder. They then ran up Fort street. There were no police that day—all kept down at the station house, and the soldiers were kept in the barracks. The streets were left at the mercy of anybody. The “Drei Hundred” marched down on Beretania street to the armory. They got ammunition there and went down to Government building. I heard the new government was proclaimed in the Government building and supported by these thirty men. I went home and stayed home.
Q. Were those all the troops that were there?
A. All that were there then. Others came in afterwards.
Q. How long afterwards?
A. About an hour afterwards—about sunset. They kept on coming, little by little. Dole resigned that day as justice of the supreme court and joined in. I went home, but, of course, the news was abroad what they were doing. The Queen and ministers consulting, they gave up the Government under protest, which was published afterwards—next day. Gave up to the superior force of the United States.
Q. Where were the United States troops at the time of the reading of the proclamation?
A. Right behind the opera house, in a building they called Arion Hall.
Q. In the house or on the street?
A. Some inside and some outside. They took possession of that quarter.
Q. Were they formed or not?
A. No; they just guarded the place.
Q. Had they arms?
A. Yes; and one or two Gatling guns—one or two, I am sure of that.
Q. At the time of the surrender of the Queen in the manner you have stated was she not in possession of the palace, barracks, and station house?
A. Yes.
Q. No attempt had been made by the Provisional Government to take them by force?
A. No.
Q. What time in the day did Minister Stevens recognize the Provisional Government—how long after it was proclaimed?
A. Nearly right afterwards.
Q. Now, when the Provisional Government was recognized by Mr. Stevens, what was the effect on the Queen and her followers?
A. They all gave up.
Q. And was it on account of the recognition by Mr. Stevens that [Page 1009] there was no effort on the part of the Queen the Government building?
A. Yes; on account of the recognition by Mr. Stevens and the presence of the United States troops.
Q. Was it or not the opinion of both parties that the recognition by Mr. Stevens ended the contest?
A. Yes; the recognition by Mr. Stevens ended the contest, because the Queen’s Government knew they could not go against Mr. Stevens’s recognition.
Q. How many troops did the Queen have in all at the time of that recognition?
A. She had a regular guard at the barracks; I think about 150.
Q. One hundred and fifty volunteers?
A. One hundred and fifty in all; and down at the station house some 200 or 300 men, with Wilson’s police and volunteers. They were armed. They had guns and Gatling guns.
Q. Were you in the palace on the 14th.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What troops were about there?
A. The Queen’s guard.
Q. How many?
A. About 80.
Q. There were certain of the members of a certain political society there asking for a new constitution. Was that a committee from that society?
A. Yes.
Q. Not only from Honolulu but from the other islands?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a large organization and has it much influence among the native population or not?
A. So far as the question of the constitution was concerned it had nearly all of the natives. At every election that point was talked about by every member to secure election.
Q. Why did they want a new constitution? What was the matter with the constitution of 1887?
A. They felt that they were forced by the constitution of 1887, by the party who got up that revolution, and that the qualification for noble voter barred most of them from voting.
Q. Tell me how that was?
A. To vote for noble on these Islands a voter must have an income of $600. If not an income, a property qualification of $3,000.
Q. Unincumbered?
A. Yes. Then there was a party called the Liberal party. We didn’t mean a constitution giving all power to the Queen. We meant a constitution for equal rights.
Q. Do I understand you to mean this: That there was a large party that wanted to give the Queen power to appoint the nobles, but the Liberals were opposed to giving her the power to appoint the nobles, but wanted freer franchise in the matter of electing nobles?
A. Yes; and the Liberals held that the Queen ought to let the strongest party in the House form a cabinet, and not appoint the favorites.
Q. How was the bulk of the native population on that question?
A. The bulk of the natives were Royalists. They held the old idea; the Queen must have all power.
Q. Is that the general feeling among the native population?
[Page 1010]A. Yes, sir; except the enlightened natives. They have a different opinion.
Q. Now, your own idea. What qualification did you want for voting for nobles?
A. The qualification of learning.
Q. What sort of property qualification, or any?
A. I wanted about one-half of the present qualification; and the voter to know how to read and write and understand the constitution.
Q. That was in order to give to the native element a larger liberty in the matter of electing nobles?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In the desire to proclaim a new constitution did the Queen seem to be meeting the wish of the native population?
A. Yes.
Q. She had, then, in her desire to have a new constitution the support of the natives?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see that constitution?
A. I did not. I only heard from persons who read it.
Q. What did you hear it was?
A. Joseph Nawahi—the Queen gave it to him to read.
Q. What did he report to you?
A. He reported to me that the nobles and representatives should be elected, but one-third of the nobles to be appointed by the Queen.
Q. Who was to elect the other two-thirds?
A. The other two-thirds of the nobles were to be elected by the same people who elect representatives now.
Q. What was to be the qualification of a person who voted for nobles under that constitution?
A. The same as that for representatives. The judges of the supreme court were only for six years, to be recommissioned every six years.
Q. And how about the cabinet?
A. The cabinet was to be appointed by the Queen.
Q. And to go out by a vote of want of confidence?
A. Yes; and I asked him further about the exercise of suffrage. I understood him to say the foreigners must take the oath of allegiance and stay here five or six years, except those foreigners who came here and were allowed to vote by royal signature.
Q. You say that since 1887 the natives have been wanting to restore the old constitution?
A. Yes.
Q. Giving to the Queen more power?
A. Yes.
Q. Have the parties been divided here on that line?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn’t the last Legislature do something in the matter of a new constitution?
A. A majority opposed it. Even some of the natives dodged around. They said they would support the convention for the new constitution, but when the thing came up they tried to dodge.
Q. Why did they try to dodge?
A. I suppose they were influenced by the Reform party.
Q. But if they had voted as they were expected to do by the people who elected them, would they have had the power to make a new constitution?
A. Yes; because there were two bills before the House to call a convention [Page 1011] of representative men all over the Islands to come and make a new constitution, but it was defeated on the compromise in 1890, and in 1892 they were defeated badly.
Q. What was the compromise of 1890?
A. To go by amendment. In 1890 we passed a good many amendments, and in 1892 those very people who promised to support it—they went back on their promises—so it was defeated.
Q. What was proposed in these amendments?
A. One proposed to reduce the qualification to $300. That was the principal point.
Q. Are these amendments in print?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you bring them?
A. Yes.
Q. How did the Liberals manage to get these representatives of this new constitution movement to vote against these amendments?
A. The Reform you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. They used their influence against it.
Q. What was their influence?
A. They have a good deal of influence. Some of the men depended upon them. Many of the Reform party were sugar planters. They held mortgages on the property of some of the legislators; some of them were dependent upon them for their pasturage.
Q. Tell me about the voting out of the several cabinets in 1892.
A. The first cabinet was called the Widemann-Parker cabinet. They were only voted out by combining the Progressive Liberals with the Reform. The Progressive joined with the Reform. They got a majority and ousted that cabinet. That was how that cabinet was ousted.
Q. Be kind enough now to state to me the parties in the body on the assembling of the last Legislature, the points of difference between them, and why the first cabinet was voted out.
A. They did anything to get the cabinet out. They had no confidence in it. Of course the Reform didn’t like that cabinet, and the Progressive Liberals didn’t. Even the natives didn’t like it. The Progressive Liberals thought that by having a new cabinet their views would be carried out. Some of them wanted to form a convention for a new constitution. That was not brought up before because the Reform opposed that.
Q. Both the Liberal party and the Reform party wanted a new constitution?
A. The Liberal party wanted a new constitution and the natives did, but the Reform didn’t want a new constitution.
Q. What is the difference between the Liberal party and the natives?
A. The only difference is the natives wanted to give the whole power to the Queen. The Liberal party did not believe in that.
Q. Well, please go on.
A. They voted out the cabinet. Then the Queen appointed another cabinet, what is called the Macfarlane cabinet. It took a week to form, it. That cabinet was voted out.
Q. Why were they voted out?
A. They did not like them; they felt they were ignored. They laid out a platform for the leader of the house to form a cabinet for the Queen. Then another cabinet came in—Cornwell, Nawahi, Creighton, and Gulick. We had a meeting the night before of the Reform and the Progressive Liberals. Nearly all the men who voted out the former [Page 1012] cabinet were at the meeting. They worked around about using all their influence to work upon the native members by means of promises and money. Then the Macfarlane cabinet was voted out. The natives stuck together to hold that cabinet in.
Q. How was the vote on that?
A. Twenty-seven to twenty-eight.
Q. Who furnished the money?
A. Friends of the Reform people. The Reform knew that their friends were using money to get some native votes to get that cabinet out.
Q. How do you know that money was being used?
A. I was told so, and I know it is a fact.
Q. How do you know it is a fact?
A. It was talked about. It was general belief.
Q. Was it generally believed, as you do, that the majority was gotten by the use of money?
A. Yes. (Continuing.) Then this cabinet of Corn well, Nawaki, Creighton, and Gulick came in. We had a meeting the previous night. We all decided we would vote them out without ceremony.
Q. Who decided that? Who was the meeting composed of?
A. Reform and Liberal. Because we felt the Queen was ignoring the majority of the house.
The cabinet was voted out in three hours. Then, afterwards, it took two weeks to form the Wilcox cabinet, which was composed of the Reform party. The Liberal was left out this time. I was a Liberal, but I didn’t kick. I said I would keep still; I would pay them back in some way. Bush was a Liberal then; he was kicking. Ashford was at Hawaii. Finally the Queen’s party commenced working against this cabinet. Mr. Parker asked me how I would vote. I told him I was tired about the cabinet, and I asked him if he was going to be in. He said yes. He asked me if I would take some position abroad. I told him I could not take a position except as minister. He said we were were going to have a new constitution. He said that as soon as they have a new cabinet they would proclaim a new constitution.
I did not believe what he said. I think he was merely working to get people to vote the cabinet out. I told him there was no need of a new constitution for giving a friend a position abroad. He said they might send me out as consul-general to Hongkong. I said the cabinet did not act right and could expect nothing from me. When they brought the resolution against that cabinet I stood and explained my vote. I explained where they stood, so we had 25 votes when that cabinet was voted out. On the 13th, which was Friday, the new cabinet was formed by the Qeeen, Sam Parker, Cornwell, Colburn, and Peterson.
I want to explain the influence of the white population here about voting. Macfarlane and Paul Neumann, when their places were vacant—two candidates were put out by the Reform party, called the Missionary party, Mr. Waterhouse and Mark Robinson, and the other party put up—
Q. What other party?
A. The other foreign element here. They put up Mr. Maile and Mr. Hopkins.
Q. What do you mean by this other foreign element?
A. I mean non missionaries, as noble voters. They need to get foreign voters to elect nobles. All the missionaries stood solid to vote for their candidate.
Q. Were the whites defeated in that election?
[Page 1013]A. Yes; they are generally defeated. It is a question of prejudice with them. When the word “missionary” is raised that party would be defeated.
Q. Well, the missionary element is an American element?
A. Yes; Boston men. They are the sons of missionaries from Boston.
Q. Are there any other nationalities; what are they?
A. Some Portuguese, some English, some Germans.
Q. What is the feeling of the people here towards the native Government; take the native population?
A. They are always for the native Government.
Q. Then they are not in favor of this Government?
A. No.
Q. How about the whites?
A. The whites in general do not favor the Government. Some of them are for annexation, and some of them would rather have independence of the country.
Q. Well, now, the annexationists who are not for this Government here, why are they opposed to this Government; are they apprehensive that this Government is not inclined to give the franchise to the native people?
A. Yes; and besides they disapprove of the way it was brought about.
Q. What do you mean by the way it was brought about?
A. The way it was established. They have in mind that this Government was put in by Minister Stevens.
Q. That is the opinion of the native population?
A. A good many whites feel the same way.
Q. There are a great many whites who feel that this Government was set up by Mr. Stevens?
A. Yes; the landing of the Boston’s men and the recognition on the same day before they got the station house and the barracks.
Q. Was there any opinion on Saturday the 14th, or on Sunday, that the troops were going to be landed and would be in the interest of the dethronement of the Queen?
A. On Sunday the news came from Colburn. Thurston went up to him with a document to get him, Peterson, and Cornwell to send for the troops to support the Provisional Government. He assured him that Minister Stevens would do what is right to support them if they would only sign the document. Nobody had an idea that the troops were going to be landed, except by the request of the Government, until Monday evening. The 16th the troops were landed, and it was a surprise to everybody. Nobody knows who called them.
Q. What was the condition of the city at the time as to peacefulness?
A. Peaceful; just the same as before. Nobody was thinking about revolution. On Sunday Mr. Parker asked me if I would take the post of commander-in-chief. I told him I would take it if I had the appointment in writing. He told me he had to see his colleague. Cornwell said he would have to consult other members of the cabinet and let me know the day afterwards. I never heard anything from them any more. I met Sam Parker. I blamed them for not acting—suppressing the people before they got in the Government building. They said the reason was they could not do it. I said if they had appointed me I would have suppressed it before anything happened. I would have gone and seen Mr. Stevens myself. Mr. Stevens told them he would not assist them.
Q. Told them on Sunday?
A. No; Monday. That is what Parker told me; the American Government [Page 1014] would support the committee of thirteen, because they were the only wealthy people of the country; would not support the Government. He told me he did not know what to do. We could not light the United States. I blamed them. I attacked them in the newspapers on their weakness. Many of the natives accused the Government of being slow—not energetic.
Q. Going back to the voting out of the Wilcox cabinet—the Progressive Liberal party united with the native element in the Legislature and voted out the Wilcox cabinet because they had no representation in the Wilcox cabinet?
A. They all represented one side—the Reform side.
Q. When that shifting of the Liberal party and the native element took place and the Reform element lost the cabinet, how did they accept it?
A. The Reform—they accepted it in bad grace. They never appeared any more. They quit the house. None of them appeared around there.
Q. Now the Legislature was prorogued, when would another assemsemble?
A. In 1894; in two years, unless a special session be called.
Q. That would leave the Queen with the last cabinet for two years?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was the situation which offended them?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there any understanding between the Liberal element and the native element that if this Wilcox cabinet was voted out that she was to proclaim a new constitution?
A. It was talked over.
Q. By whom?
A. It was whispered around. Sam. Parker said there would be a new constitution. I do not like to talk. He talked confidentially as a friend.
Q. That is all right. This is not for local consumption.
A. And some of the members who had been up to see the Queen told me also about the new constitution; that the wish of the people would be fulfilled by a new constitution.
Q. Now, was the Liberal element favoring a new constitution?
A. They had already done so.
Q. Were they in favor of the Queen doing it by proclamation?
A. Yes.
Q. The Progressive Liberals?
A. Yes.
Q. They were for the native element when it narrowed down to a controversy between the reform element and the native element?
A. Yes.
Q. And they were willing for a new constitution?
A. Yes; the whole thing was promised since after 1887. It was promised by candidates running for office.
Q. Do you mean to say that popular elections were all on the line of a new constitution?
A. Yes. In 1890 the Thurston cabinet was a strong one, but on that alone it was defeated; a majority was elected and the cabinet was ousted out, and of course the members did not carry out the wishes of the people; they tried to promise the people the other way.
Q. Who did that?
A. Those in 1890 who were in the cabinet—Widemann and the others.
[Page 1015]Q. What is the reason the whites say they do not want the natives to have suffrage?
A. They have an idea that the natives would have control of the Legislature. That is the whole idea. They wanted to have the whole thing in the hands of the sugar-planters.
Q. The sugar-planters are not many in numbers. How would they have it in their hands?
A. Of course, they have the high qualifications.
Q. Were many sugar-planters elected nobles to the last Legislature?
A. Some of them. I don’t know how many. On the islands of Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai the nobles are controlled by sugar-planters. This is the only island they can not control.
Q. All the islands except this elected candidates of sugar-planters—nobles?
A. Yes. Here the most popular would be elected. Generally sugar-planters are not popular on account of cheap labor.
Q. They do not like the sugar-planting interest because it brings cheap labor?
A. Yes; the workingmen are against that.
Q. Do the Chinese intermarry much with natives?
A. Not very much. The Chinese merchants marry natives.
Q. How about the Japanese?
A. Not very much.
Q. Do the Portuguese and natives marry very much?
A. They marry among themselves, principally.
Q. The principal intermarriages are between the natives themselves?
A. They marry sometimes with foreigners—nearly all half-castes are Americans—that is, their fathers are Americans.
Q. What is your attitude in the matter of the present Government? I mean, how do you feel about it? Do you feel that it ought to be continued or ought to have been established?
A. For myself, I tell you frankly, I am not for the present Government.
Q. What is your objection to it?
A. My objection is that this Government is a government de facto of the Missionary party. It is not a popular one. It is against the wishes of the natives and a good many white people. It was established by Mr. Stevens, and in my heart I could say I am a lover of justice. I do not believe in a government established by a strong hand. If lam defeated I am all right. I am a revolutionist.
Q. What do you mean by saying “I am a revolutionist?”
A. I mean that I have started several.
Q. What was your motive for the revolution of 1880?
A. The constitution.
Q. What did you want then?
A. I felt something like the people here felt about the constitution of 1887, that it was forced upon them. Kalakaua was forced to sign it.
Q. What was your plan to change it?
A. My plan was to restore the old constitution, with some little amendments, to suit the view of the people—not to have a high qualification of voters.
Q. Well, to do that you took the Palace, and then, what was your next step?
A. I took the Palace with a view that I would be supported by the King’s guard. Of course, if I had that I would have had everything in my hands.
[Page 1016]Q. Why did you think they would support you?
A. I had some understanding with them. The King hinted to join with the matter. Then we were to join with Ashford and have no opposition.
Q. Did you take the Palace by an understanding with Kalakaua?
A. Yes; when I got there Kalakaua went down to the boathouse.
Q. Did you see him?
A. No. He sent word to go—that he would not allow me inside the Palace.
Q. Who?
A. The King. He sent R. H. Baker with a message that I must not go in the Palace—and those in the barracks told me to stay in the yard-but do not take possession of this place. I said to Baker to go and see Kalakaua again. He went down to see the King, and I never heard anything until the rifles commenced around. A party of sharpshooters took possession of the opera house. They were whites. The first thing I was fired upon by them—fired upon without any notice. I had twelve men who took possession of the Government building. When fired upon some men ran away—got shot. My men were unarmed. Had only a few arms. We sent off shell up on the opera house. I wanted to take the Palace at that time. I had no men at that time. My men were scattered.
Q. Why did they scatter?
A. They were fired upon and they all jumped over the wall and went away. I went into the bungalow and stayed there.
Q. What was Kalakaua doing all this time?
A, He stayed down there until I gave up in the evening.
Q. Who was he siding with?
A. Well, I do not know. He could go back and take possession of the whole Government.
Q. Did Liliuokalani have anything to do with it in anyway?
A. No; she was a confidential friend of mine then. She knew something about it. I told her we had a little difficulty with her brother. I told her to go and see Kalakaua and make up the difference. I told her if Kalakaua got it into his head that the movement was to put her on the throne, I might be in a bad position.
Q. What has become of Baker, the go-between between you and Kalakaua?
A. He is living here.
Q. What is his position in the present Government?
A. Nothing. He was the man who went with Kalakaua, when he died in San Francisco.
Q. There was never any understanding between you and Liliuokalani that she was to take the place of Kalakaua if you were successful?
A. No; but before that the Reform people wanted to put her on the throne. The people talked, but it was all talk.
Q. Is Ashford the man in whose behalf the British minister interfered, in the matter of having him tried by a foreign jury, in 1892?
A. Yes; V. V. Ashford.
Q. Is he here now?
A. Yes.
Q. Where is his brother?
A. Here—Clarence—he was with him in 1892. He was a Liberal.
Q. What was the object of the movement in 1892?
A. The object was to establish a republic, with a view, when the people were educated to it, to favor annexation with the United States.
[Page 1017]Q. You proposed to experiment with a republic and in the course of time to get into the American Union?
A. Yes.
Q. As a State?
A. Yes. When I was in prison in 1892 Mr. Stevens made a speech in my favor at some Grand Army affair.
Q. Did he want you discharged?
A. He did his best. He said they did not arrest people in America for such things.
Q. There was no force used in that Ashford-Wilcox conspiracy in 1892?
A. No; it was one object to have equal rights—that was all.
Q. It is sometimes said that natives are signing petitions for annexation here, and that they are in favor of it. What have you to say about that?
A. It is not true; they may sign under some influence against their will.
Q. What sort of influence?
A. They hold positions; they would have to give up positions; they have no other occupation. Besides, they do not like these people to annex them.
Q. They hate the people who want to?
A. They hate the Provisional Government. They remember what the Commissioner said when he went to Washington.
Q. What is their idea?
A. They did not like Thurston speaking against them. He said they were like Indians. It brought great prejudice against them.
Q. Are they suspicious that this is a movement in which they will lose very largely their political power?
A. Yes.
Q. And that it is intended to put the foreigners in control?
A. Some of them think so. They think they would be disfranchised, something like Alaska Indians.
Q. The movement of 1892—did that contemplate the use of force in overturning the Government?
A. No; we talked about education. We thought we had a big following and would be supported by the people. Of course, the Government took an active part in it—took an active part in suppressing it.
Mr. Blount. I think I have asked all I want to ask you. Is there any statement you would like to make yourself in connection with this matter?
A. No.
April 27, 1893.
Q. Do the natives generally have some stock—horses and cattle?
A. Yes.
Q. How do they graze them?
A. On land; they lease it—pay so much a year.
Q. Who are the people who own the land; are they corporations or individuals?
A. Some individuals, some corporations. These sugar-planters, they have long leases on what is called crown lands.
Q. And the natives have no other means of grazing a cow or a horse?
A. Except by letting it go on their land and paying so much a year.
Q. Does this fact enable the sugar-planters and owners of plantations to exert any influence over the native vote?
[Page 1018]A. They have great influence on those points.
Q. How?
A. In the election of 1892 at Kauai, Messrs. Gay and Robinson, who owned large amount of property there, told a good many of the natives, who voted against their candidate for representative, to take away their horses and the few cattle they had on their land.
Q. What did they do with them?
A. They sold them—they had no place to keep them.
Q. Does that appear to enable them to control the native vote to a considerable extent?
A. Sometimes, but we have secret vote in this country now. They can not control it so well as they used to.
Q. Would that enable them “to get natives to sign a petition for annexation?
A. In that way they sign petitions because they are obliged. They have their horses and cattle.
Q. The only chance the native has to get his stock grazed is on land belonging to large planters; sometimes individuals and sometimes corporations.
A. Yes.
Q. Generally corporations?
A. Yes; planters, generally corporations.
I have carefully read the foregoing and pronounce it an accurate report of my interviews with Mr. Blount.