Annexation | Page 2 | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

January 26, 2018 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Object of the Māhele

“The object of the Māhele was to ensure that in the event of annexation, Kamehameha III and other elite Hawaiians would not be dispossessed of their landholdings.”

“The strategy was to convert those landholdings into a legal form that would be recognized by an incoming colonial government – whether American, British, or French – as private property.” (Banner)

This falls back to the concept of the ‘Law of Nations’ – “Hobbes was … the first who gave a distinct, though imperfect idea, of the law of nations. He divides the law of nature into that of man, and that of states: and the latter is, according to him, what we usually call the law of nations.”

“‘The maxims,’ he adds, ‘of each of these laws are precisely the same: but as states, once established, assume personal properties, that which is termed the natural law, when we speak of the duties of individuals, is called the law of nations when applied to whole nations or states.’” (Law of Nations, 1844)

“The general usage now is not to touch private property upon land, without making compensation, unless in special cases dictated by the necessary operations of war, or when captured in places carried by storm, and which repelled all the overtures for a capitulation.” (Kent, 1826)

The matter was of serious interest to Kamehameha III …

“Only those lands belonging to the government could be confiscated in the event of conquest by an invading country. This was undoubtedly on the mind of Kamehameha III as discussed on December 18th, 1847 in Privy Council, ‘if a Foreign Power should take the Islands what lands would they respect?’”

“Recognition as a nation-state in 1843 prevented the legal colonization of Hawai‘i but Kamehameha III was well aware of the threat of imperialism. The acquisition of another state’s territory through conquest was not outlawed in international law until the Kellogg-Briand Pact in 1929. This topic was discussed in Privy Council on December 18th, 1847:” (Preza)

“The King remarked before this rule was passed if his lands were merely entered in a Book, the Government lands also in a Book and all private allodial titles in a Book, if a Foreign Power should take the Islands what lands would they respect.”

“Would they take possession of his lands?”

“Mr. Wyllie replied that after the recognition of His Majesty’s Independence by the United States, Great Britain and France, and the engagement of the two latter powers near to take possession of any part of the Islands, he thought the danger adverted to by the King was exceedingly remote.”

“Those Great Powers held the World in check, and they were not likely to permit that any other Powers should take a possession of the Islands which they bound themselves not to take.”

“So long as the King, as hitherto, governed his Kingdom justly and with due regard to the rights of all Foreigners and to the laws of Nations, no Nation could have a plea to seize the Islands.”

“Mr. Lee gave it as his opinion, that except in the case of resistance to, and conquest by, any foreign power the King’s right to his private lands would be respected.”

“The King said unless it were so, he would prefer having no lands whatever, but he asked during the French Revolution were not the King’s lands confiscated?”

“Mr. Wyllie replied they were confiscated, but that was by the King’s own rebellious subjects, and it was to prevent such a risk here, that he regreted that Mr. Lee had not added to his rules one to the effect that in the event of Treason to, or rebellion against, the King, all lands of the King, held by Chiefs Landlords or whomsoever should ipso facto revert to the King.”

“The King observed that he would prefer that his private lands should be registered not in a separate Book, but in the same Book as all other allodial Titles, and that the only separate Book, should be that of the Government lands.” (Privy Council Minutes, December 18, 1847)

“In our opinion, while it was clearly the intention of Kamehameha III to protect the lands which he reserved to himself out of the domain which had been acquired by his family through the prowess and skill of his father, the conqueror, from the danger of being treated as public domain or Government property …”

“… it was also his intention to provide that those lands should descend to his heirs and successors, the future wearers of the crown which the conqueror had won; and we understand the act of 7th June, 1848, as having secured both those objects.”

“Under that act the lands descend in fee, the inheritance being limited however to the successors to the throne, and each successive possessor may regulate and dispose of the same according to his will and pleasure, as private property, in like manner as was done by Kamehameha III.” (Hawaii Supreme Court, Addressing Estate of Kamehameha IV 1864)

“The Māhele did not provide much land to Hawaiian commoners, but it was not supposed to. The Māhele was a means by which the Hawaiian elite hoped to preserve its eliteness under colonial rule, by holding on to its land.” (Banner)

The first māhele, or division, of lands was signed on January 27, 1848; the last māhele was signed on March 7, 1848.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Great-Mahele-Book

January 18, 2018 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Nationality of Membership in Annexation Club

We are often told that American businessmen overthrew Queen Lili‘uokalani and the Hawai‘i Constitutional Monarchy.

The fact is, the organizers of the overthrow, the Committee of Safety, were made up of 6-Hawaiian citizens (naturalized or by birth,) 5-Americans, 1-Scotsman and 1-German. (They were all residents of Hawai‘i and registered voters. None were missionaries; only 3 of the 13 had any link to the American Protestant missionaries.)

Shortly after the overthrow, “An association has recently been formed here known as the Annexation Club.” Various regional Annexation Clubs formed in several communities.

There were: “Hawaii annexation clubs. Hilo, North Kohala, South Kona, Ho‘okena, Napo‘opo‘o, Kapalilua. Maui annexation club. Wailuku. Kauai annexation clubs. Lehui, Waimea, Kealia. I would also state that we have lists in the Hamakua District on Hawaii, the Lahaina, Hana, and Paia districts on Maui, and at Kaluaaha on Molokai.” (JW Jones May 15, 1893)

“The first steps to form this association were taken on the 21st of this month, and its membership now includes some 2,000 of the residents of this city, who are, it is believed, fully representative of the intelligence and respectability, as well as of the material interests of this community.” (Resolution of Annexation Club, March 31, 1893; Blount Report)

“The majority of those who have joined the organization have done so after careful consideration and because it is their firm conviction that the country can no longer maintain a good and stable independent government.”

“Numerous reasons may be given for this, but I will state only a few of the more prominent.”

1) “The unfitness of a majority of the voters for representatives in this country to have the franchise and use it for upright and progressive government.”
2) “A growing jealousy among the natives of foreigners, who, they feel, are acquiring the property and business of the country.”
3) “The diversified foreign population of the country, who come from all parts of the world. This population consists of all classes of men who come here for different purposes, a great many to make what they can out of the country and then leave.” (HP Baldwin to Blount, April 25, 1893; Blount Report)

As with the diversity of nationalities of the folks orchestrating the overthrow, so was the make-up of the Annexation Club (July 9, 1893):

By the end of September 1893, the number of Hawaiians on the roster of the Annexation Club surpassed the Americans; then, the top three were noted as:

“A large number of the members of this association were not actually concerned in the establishment of the present Government, but all the members are convinced that it is essential to the safety and security of life and property in the Hawaiian Islands, and to the permanent welfare of the people here, that this country shall become an integral portion of the American Union.”

“The need of a strong permanent Government to steady political passions, and keep this community free from dangers both of internal discord and foreign interference, has become apparent to all of us, and we look forward with earnest hope to the time when Hawaii can enter the great Republic.”

“We have learned with profound satisfaction that President Cleveland has appointed you to visit these islands, as we understand, for the purpose of investigating their political conditions and needs.”

“We are confident that the most searching examination and analysis will disclose the fact that the present Government was established as a matter of necessity and duty, in the interest of humanity as well as of civilization, and not as a scheme to promote the selfish objects of any set or clique.”

“The head of the recent Government having disavowed her obligations to the only authority under which she held power, the constitution of 1887, and having publicly announced her solemn intention to govern by royal proclamation and not by law, the only course to follow to preserve the body politic was to establish this Government in the interests of law and order.”

“It is the hope of the members of this association that a treaty of annexation may soon be accomplished between Hawaii and the United States, which, while securing all the safeguards of a free and stable government to all native aboriginal Hawaiians as well as to those of foreign ancestry, will entail no burdens on the United States, but on the contrary will be a source of additional strength and satisfaction.”

“We are aware, Mr. Commissioner, that your own views on any of these matters will depend on the result of the observations and inquiries which you will make during your visit here, and that our call upon you must be regarded as entirely informal and unofficial.” (Resolution of Annexation Club, March 31, 1893; Blount Report)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Iolani Palace, circa 1889

January 14, 2018 by Peter T Young 5 Comments

No Treaty, No Annexation … or, No Need

‘No Treaty, No Annexation’ are common buzz words from some arguing that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Constitutional Monarchy on January 17, 1893 was ineffective and the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists.

However, where, specifically, does it say, then and now, that a ‘Treaty’ is required, or the Senate must vote on ‘Annexation’ in a certain way?

Annexation of Hawai‘i to the US was not a hostile takeover, it was something the Republic of Hawai‘i sought.

“There was no ‘conquest’ by force in the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands nor ‘holding as conquered territory;’ they (Republic of Hawai‘i) came to the United States in the same way that Florida did, to wit, by voluntary cession”. (Territorial Supreme Court; Albany Law Journal)

In Hawai‘i, “In 1893, ‘[a] so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawai‘i, acting with the United States Armed Forces, replaced the [Hawaiian] monarchy with a provisional government.’ ‘That government sought annexation by the United States’ (Newlands Resolution).” (US Supreme Court)

“Then the provisional government grew into the constitutional Republic of Hawai‘i, and we have fully recognized that as the rightful and permanent government of Hawai‘i, and have kept our minister and consul-general at Honolulu and our war ships in that bay to protect them and the Republic….” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“No nation in the world has refused recognition of the Republic of Hawai‘i as the rightful Government, and none of them question its soverign [sic] right to deal with any question that concerns the people of Hawai‘i.” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“Recognized by the powers of the earth, sending and receiving envoys, enforcing respect for the law, and maintaining peace within its island borders, Hawaii sends to the United States, not a commission representing a successful revolution, but the accredited plenipotentiary of a constituted and firmly established sovereign State.”

“… the Republic of Hawai‘i approaches the United States as an equal, and points for its authority to that provision of article 32 of the constitution promulgated July 24, 1894, whereby …”

“The President (of the Republic of Hawai‘i,) with the approval of the cabinet, is hereby expressly authorized and empowered to make a treaty of political or commercial union between the Republic of Hawai‘i and the United States of America, subject to the ratification of the Senate.” (US Secretary of State Sherman, June 15, 1897)

The Hawaiian resolution for ratification of the annexation treaty was unanimously adopted by the Senate of the Republic of Hawai‘i on September 9, 1897.

“There is no provision in the [US] Constitution by which the national government is specifically authorized to acquire territory; and only by a great effort of the imagination can the substantive power to do so be found in the terms of any or all of the enumerated powers.”

“The United States has acquired territory through cession, purchase, conquest, annexation, treaty, and discovery and occupation. These methods are permissible under international law and have been approved by the Supreme Court.”

“The executive and the legislature have performed different roles in the acquisition of territory by each of these means. Unfortunately, the historical practice does not supply a precise explanation of where the Constitution places the power to acquire territory for the United States.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

“The power of congress to acquire new territory, either by conquest, purchase, or annexation, was much debated at the time of the acquisition of Louisiana from France, in 1803, and in a less degree in connection with the purchase of Florida and of Alaska.”

“It has now come to be recognized and established, rather by precedent and the general acquiescence of the people, than by any strict constitutional justification. In fact, the power cannot be derived from any narrow or technical interpretation of the constitution.”

“But it is necessary to recognize the fact that there is in this country a national sovereignty. That being conceded, it easily follows that the right to acquire territory is incidental to this sovereignty. It is, in effect, a resulting power, growing necessarily out of the aggregate of powers delegated to the national government by the constitution.” (Handbook of American Constitutional Law)

“Territory is acquired by discovery and occupation where no other recognized nation asserts sovereignty over such territory. In contrast, when territory is acquired by treaty, purchase, cession, or conquest, it is acquired from another nation.” (Footnote, Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

“We have acquired much territory under treaty provisions and by conquest, and in such case the acquisition may be regarded as incidental to the powers mentioned …”

“… but we have also acquired territory by original discovery and appropriation alone. Such is the fact with reference to a large portion of Oregon; and such is peculiarly the fact with reference to certain small islands of the sea— the so-called Guano Islands.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

Some cite the ‘Apology Resolution’ as evidence of a faulty process; however, as noted below, ”the Apology Resolution did not confer substantive rights or have a substantive legal effect. Thus, the Apology Bill cannot serve to support a fundamental right to nation-building”. (SCWC-29794)

“The State Supreme Court, however, read [this] as a congressional recognition – and preservation – of claims against Hawai‘i. There is no justification for turning an express disclaimer of claims against one sovereign into an affirmative recognition of claims against another.”

The US Supreme Court concluded, “First, ‘whereas’ clauses like those in the Apology Resolution cannot bear the weight that the lower court placed on them. As we recently explained in a different context, ‘where the text of a clause itself indicates that it does not have operative effect, such as ‘whereas’ clauses in federal legislation …, a court has no license to make it do what it was not designed to do.’”

“Second, even if the ‘whereas’ clauses had some legal effect, they did not ‘chang[e] the legal landscape and restructur[e] the rights and obligations of the State.’”

“The Apology Resolution reveals no indication – much less a ‘clear and manifest’ one – that Congress intended to amend or repeal the State’s rights and obligations under Admission Act (or any other federal law); nor does the Apology Resolution reveal any evidence that Congress intended sub silentio to ‘cloud’ the title that the United States held in ‘absolute fee’” and transferred to the State in 1959.”

“Third, the Apology Resolution would raise grave constitutional concerns if it purported to ‘cloud’ Hawaii’s title to its sovereign lands more than three decades after the State’s admission to the Union. We have emphasized that ‘Congress cannot, after statehood, reserve or convey submerged lands that have already been bestowed upon a State.’”

A later Hawaiʻi Supreme Court case noted (in 2014,) “The US Supreme Court reversed this court, holding that the Apology Resolution did not confer substantive rights or have a substantive legal effect. Thus, the Apology Bill cannot serve to support a fundamental right to nation-building”. (SCWC-29794)

It’s interesting to note the Supreme Court’s repeated references to the Republic of Hawai‘i, Annexation, Territory, Newlands Resolution, Admission Act, State, etc.

Commenters, please focus on the question here: Where, specifically, does it say, then and now, that a ‘Treaty’ is required, or the Senate must vote on ‘Annexation’ in a certain way?

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Raising_of_American_flag_at_Iolani_Palace-1898

July 2, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Hawaiian Patriotic League

“A Great Meeting of Makaʻāinana will be held at Palace Square, at 5 pm on this very day, July 2, 1894; to show our steadfastness in our patriotism.”

“Hawai‘i’s own Lahui, as well as the other ethnicities who are of the same mind, are invited to go in unity and show their insistence behind the Resolution that will be passed at that time.”

“Invited are the Men, the Women, and all the young people of the Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha ‘Āina,) and all friends, to go immediately with great enthusiasm and festivity to fill the meeting with numbers of Twenty and more thousand people.

“And provided that the Marshal (Ilamuku) of the Provisional Government has approved our meeting. Therefore, we have nothing to be concerned about. Let us however maintain the peace.” (Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Buke II, Helu 974, Aoao 2. Iulai 2, 1894)

“This afternoon at five o’clock the loyal citizens of Hawaii will meet on Palace Square, and enter a solemn and earnest protest against the infamous outrage, which it is proposed to perpetuate on Wednesday—the proclaiming of a republic of filibusters, the proclamation of a constitution framed by aliens and for the sole benefit of certain classes.” (Hawaii Holomua, July 2, 1894)

“Over five thousand people gathered, among whom were all classes, all nationalities and all friends of popular government. The meeting was most orderly, and as Nawahi urged in opening the meeting, free from any undue demonstration, free from noise generally attached to a political meeting.”

“Mr JO Carter, one of the oldest and best known citizens in the country read the resolution, protesting against the so-called republic. Messrs Bush, Nawahi and Kaulia spoke to the Hawaiians in most eloquent terns, and translated the resolution which was received with tremendous cheering by the Hawaiians”. (Hawaii Holomua, July 3, 1894)

“Be it resolved, that the Hui Aloha ‘Āina and other Patriotic Leagues, together with the Loyal subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in Mass Meeting assembled, representing by far the greater majority of the legitimate voters of this country …”

“… do hereby most solemnly protest against the promulgation of a new Constitution, formed without the consent and participation of the People, and we also protest against changing the form of government from the one under which we have lived peacefully and prosperously for many years.”

“And that we maintain that the will of the majority of the legitimate voters of Hawaii should be the supreme power of the land, as such power is so recognized and accepted by all the enlightened countries and by all the enlightened governments of the world.” (Daily Bulletin, July 3, 1894)

Ka Hui Hawaii Aloha ‘Āina (Hawaiian Patriotic League) was “composed of only respectable Hawaiians according to a statement made by one of its officers. Foreigners who are in sympathy with the movement can join and become honorary members only.”

“The object of this association is to preserve and maintain, by all legal and peaceful means and measures, the independent autonomy of the islands of Hawai‘i nei; and if the preservation of our independence be rendered impossible, our object shall then be to exert all peaceful and legal efforts to secure for the Hawaiian people and citizens the continuance of their civil rights.” (Hawaiian Gazette, March 21, 1893)

On September 6, 1897, the Hui Aloha ʻĀina held a mass meeting at Palace Square, which thousands of people attended; Hui President James Kaulia gave a rousing speech, saying “We, the nation (lahui) will never consent to the annexation of our lands, until the very last patriot lives.”

Following Kaulia, David Kalauokalani, President of the Hui Kālaiʻāina, explained the details of the annexation treaty to the crowd. He told them that the Republic of Hawaiʻi had agreed to give full government authority over to the United States, reserving nothing. (Hawaiʻi State Archives)

Between September 11 and October 2, 1897, Hui Aloha ʻĀina O Nā Kane and Hui Aloha ʻĀina O Nā Wahine prepared, circulated and obtained names under a petition opposing annexation with the United States.

Later, “the Woman’s Hawaiian Patriotic League and the Hawaiian Patriotic League (sent) out by special messengers to every district in the Hawaiian Islands petitions against annexation for signature by Hawaiian citizens in order that the people’s will may be accurately ascertained as a plebiscite is not at present to be permitted by the Annexation Oligarchy.” (The Independent, September 13, 1897)

Their 556-page petition totaled 21,269-names, 10,378-male and 10,891-female. Of these 16,331 adults were adults and 4,938-minors. (The petition is now stored at the US National Archives.)

(In his March 4, 1898 review and reporting on the petition, LA Thurston noted several “reasons for discrediting the petition”:
1. The petition certified that the minor petitioners are between 14 and 20 years of age; however the names of hundreds (677) noted ages under 14 years of age.
2. The ages of many petitioners who are under 14 were changed to 14 or above.
3. Many of the signatures are in the same handwriting (he called them “forgeries”.)
4. In a great number of instances, the ages are all in the same handwriting and in round numbers only.
5. The signatures of the petitioners 2 and 3 years of age were in good, round handwriting.)

A second petition, conducted by Hui Kālaiʻāina, is reported to have contained 17,000-names of people who supported the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy (its whereabouts is unknown.)

The Hui Aloha ʻĀina held another mass meeting on October 8, 1897 and at that time decided to send delegates to Washington, DC to present the petitions to President McKinley and to the Congress. (Silva)

Four delegates, James Kaulia, David Kalauokalani, John Richardson and William Auld, went to DC on December 6 to deliver the petition; the second session of the 55th Congress opened at that time. The delegates and Queen Liliʻuokalani planned a strategy to present the petition to the Senate. (Hawaiʻi State Archives)

They chose the Queen as chair of their Washington committee. Together, they decided to present the petitions of Hui Aloha ʻĀina only, because the substance of the two sets of petitions was different. Hui Aloha ʻĀina’s was called “petition protesting annexation,” but the Hui Kālaiʻāina’s petitions called for the monarchy to be restored. (Silva)

In the end, the motion to annex needed a two-thirds majority to pass (60-votes;) only 46-Senators voted for it (down from the 58 who supported it when they arrived.) The annexation vote failed. However, the win was short-lived.

President William McKinley called for a Joint Resolution of Congress to annex the Hawaiian Islands, a process requiring only a simple majority in both houses of Congress. (In 1845, a Joint Resolution was used to admit Texas to the Union as a State; Hawaiʻi was not being annexed as a State, but rather, as a Territory.)

On May 4, 1898, nine days after the Spanish-American War began, Representative Francis G Newlands of Nevada introduced a Joint Resolution in the House of Representatives to annex the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.

The House approved the Joint Resolution on June 15, 1898 by a vote of 209 to 91; the Senate approved the resolution on July 6 by a vote of 42 to 21, with 26 senators abstaining. (umn-edu)

House Joint Resolution 259, 55th Congress, 2nd session, known as the “Newlands Resolution,” passed Congress and was signed into law by President McKinley on July 7, 1898; the US flag was hoisted over Hawaiʻi on August 12, 1898.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

RG46 Records of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 5/28/1897 – 2/18/1899 SEN55A-J11.2 Hawaii Anti-annexation Petition 1897 Folder 01 Men 001-119

Petition_Against_Annexation-claimed forgery (same writing style for several signatures-as well as for younger signers)

RG46 Records of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 5/28/1897 – 2/18/1899 SEN55A-J11.2 Hawaii Anti-annexation Petition 1897 Folder 04 women 001-124

RG46 Records of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 5/28/1897 – 2/18/1899 SEN55A-J11.2 Hawaii Anti-annexation Petition 1897 Folder 01 Men 001-119

Hui_Aloha_ʻĀina_o_Na_Kane

Hui_Aloha_ʻĀina_o_Na_Wahine

Anti-Annexation_Meeting in Hilo-(hawaii-edu)

June 18, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

$25,000 Annuity

“In an interview, ex-Queen Liliuokalani said of the proposed treaty between the United States and Hawaii: ‘Fifteen hundred people are giving away my country.’”

“‘The people of my country do not want to be annexed to the United States. Nor do the people of the United States wants annexation. It is the work of 1,500 people, mostly Americans, who have settled in Hawaii. Of this number those who are not native born Americans are of American parentage.’”

“‘None of my people want the island annexed. The population of the islands is 109,000. Of this number 40,000 are native Hawaiians. The rest are Americans, Germans, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese, English and a small proportion from other countries. The 1,500 Americans who are responsible for what was done to-day are running the affairs of the islands.’”

“‘There is no provision made in this treaty for me. In the Harrison treaty I was allowed $20,000 a year, but that treaty never went into effect. I have never received one dollar from the United States.’”

“‘No one looked after my interests in the preparation of this treaty. Yet my people, who form so large a part of the population of the islands, would want justice done me.’” (Los Angeles Herald, June 18, 1897)

Then, a couple American newspapermen (Charles L MacArthur, a former New York state senator and then editor of the local newspaper in Troy NY and William Shaw Bowen, a journalist with the New York World newspaper) independently supported an effort to arrange a $25,000 annuity to Liliʻuokalani.

In responding to questions noted in the Morgan Report, MacArthur stated, “I went to Mr. Dole. I had trouble in my own mind as to whether the Queen had not some personal rights in the crown lands, for the reason that the treasury department had never asked her to make a return on the income …”

“… which was about $75,000 a year, from these lands and which she had received, and as the treasury had never asked her for a return I thought she had an individual right in the lands.”

“I said to the people, ‘She has individual rights, and you have not asked her to make a return to the treasury of what she has received and what she did not receive.’ The President explained it all to me, the grounds of it. “

“When Mr. Neuman indicated that they were willing – I had made the suggestion and others had – that they ought to buy her out, pay her a definite sum, $25,000 or some other sum per year for her rights.”

“Her rights had been shattered, but I thought they ought to pay for them, and so I went, in accordance with Mr. Neuman’s suggestion, or by his consent, to see President Dole.”

“Mr. Neuman said he wanted to talk with President Dole about this matter, but he had not been there officially, and he could not go there publicly to his official place. I talked with Mr. Dole, and Mr Dole said he could not officially do anything without consulting his executive committee …”

“… but he said he would be very happy to meet Mr. Neuman and see what they wanted – see if they could come to any terms about this thing by which the Queen would abdicate and surrender her rights.”

“Mr. Neuman and his daughter called, nominally for the daughter to see Mrs. Dole, so that it could not get out, if they made a call, they could say it was merely a social call, not an official call.”

“Of course, I do not know what their conversation was; but Mr. Neuman, acting on that, called on the Queen. Mr. Dole and Mr. Neuman both impressed on me the importance of not having this thing get out, or the whole thing would go up in smoke. Mr. Neuman said he could bring this thing about if he could keep it from the Queen’s retainers – her people.”

“He said, ‘That is the difficulty about this thing.’ This matter went on for three or four days. Mr. Neuman saw the Queen and she agreed not to say anything about it, so Mr. Neuman tells me, and I got it from other sources there which I think are reliable. They came to some sort of understanding; I do not know what it was.”

“They went so far as to say this woman would not live over three or four years; that she had some heart trouble; and if they gave her $25,000 a year it would not be for a long time. … Mr. Neuman said she assented to it, if she could satisfy one or two of her people.”

Bowen noted in testimony in the Morgan Report, “One day while dining with Paul Neuman I said: ‘I think it would be a good thing if the Queen could be pensioned by the Provisional Government; it would make matters harmonious, relieve business, and make matters much simpler.’”

“I also said that I was aware that certain gentlemen in Washington were opposed to pensioning the Queen; that certain Senators raised that objection to the treaty that was brought from the islands because it recognized the principle of the right of a queen to a pension.”

“There was one Senator, especially, from the South, who said, without discussing the treaty, that that was objectionable to him; that his people would object to it. I said, “If there is no annexation it is a serious question; if there is, the Queen should be taken care of.”

“Neuman agreed with me. He was a strong friend of the Queen, disinterested and devoted. But he said it could not be done. I told him that I had become acquainted with the members of the Provisional Government who were high in authority, and I thought I would try to have it done.

“Mr. Dole said he would not make any propositions himself and asked me what I thought the pension ought to be. On the spur of the moment, not having considered the matter, I said I thought the Queen ought to get a very handsome pension out of the crown lands.”

“I asked if there was any question about raising the money, and he said none whatever. He finally asked me to name the figures. He had the idea that the figures had been suggested. I said, ‘You ought to give $20,000 a year to furnish her followers with poi. That is the native dish.’ Mr. Dole said he would consider that question.”

“The result was that Mr. Dole told Mr. Neuman that if the Queen would make such a proposition to him it would receive respectful attention and intimated that he thought it would be accepted. Mr. Seaman saw the Queen and told me that he thought it would be done; that the more he thought of it the more convinced he was that it would be better all around.”

“In the meantime he (Blount) had been to the Queen, to Mr. Dole, and had done what he could to prevent the carrying out of the plan. Mr. Neuman had an interview with the Queen.”

“She told him that she would do nothing more in the matter, and asked him to give back her power of attorney, and he tore it up in her presence. This was the 22d, that he tore up his power of attorney.”

“On the 21st instant Mr. Claus Spreckels called to see me. He said that he suspected there was an effort at negotiation between the Queen and the Provisional Government, and that he had urged the Queen to withdraw her power of attorney from Paul Neumann.”

“How much or how little Mr. Spreckels knows about this matter I am unable to say, as I do not know how to estimate him, never having met him before. He promised to see me again before the mail leaves for the United States on next Wednesday, and give me such information as he could acquire in the meantime.”

“I have no doubt whatever that if Mr. Blount had not prevented, and secondarily Mr. Claus Speckels, the agent for the sugar trust, that plan would have been carried out. I have no doubt of it in my own mind.” (Bowen; Morgan Report)

“Thus Blount intervened to scuttle negotiations between the Queen and President Dole that were strongly on track toward a mutually agreeable settlement whereby the Queen would give up all claims to the throne in return for an annuity.” (MorganReport)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Liliuokalani_in_1917