People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 37, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 March 1894 — MORGAN REPORTS. [ARTICLE]

MORGAN REPORTS.

Views of a Senate Committee on the Hawaiian Muddie. Ex-Minister Stevens Exonerated, Though Be Did W rone, It Says, in Establtshiof a Protectorate—The President’s Coarse Commended. BLAMES NO ONE. Washington, Feb. 28. Senator Morgan, chairman of the senate committee on foreign relations, presented the report of the investigation of that committee made under the following resolution: ‘•Resolved, That the committee on foreign relations shall inquire and report whether any, and, if so, what, irregularities have occurred in the diplomatic or other intercourse between the Doited States and Hawaii in relation to the recent political revolution in Hawaii, and to this end said committee is authorized to send for persons ana papers and to administer oaths to witnesses.” The report prepared by Senator Morgan is concurred in by Senators Sherman, Frye, Dolph and Davis, the republican members of the committee, who also made a supplementary report, taking more positive grounds than the Morgan report, while Senators Butler, Turpie, Daniel and Gray (democrats) submit a minority report. A synopsis of the document is as follows:

Scope of the Investigation. Senator Morgan in his report says that the Inquiry related, first, to the conduct of the government as shown in its official acts and correspondence; and. second, to the conduct of the civil and military offloe'rs of the government in the discharge of their public duties and functions. The report practically begins with a declaration against monarchism in the Hawaiian islands, saying that we exercise at least a moral suzerainty over that country. Hawaii, it says, is an American state and is embraced in the American commercial and military system. In this attitude of the two governments Hawaii must be entitled to demand of the United States an indulgent consideration if not An active sympathy. Stevens’ Course Justified. Coming to the landing of the troops from the United States steamer Boston, Senator Morgan says that a condition of affairs existed in Honolulu which led naturally to the apprehension that violence or civil commotion would ensue, in which the seourlty of American citizens residing in that city would bo put in peril, as had been done on three occasions. There was not in Honolulu at that time any efficient executive power through which the rights of Amencau citizens residing there could be protected. The authority of the queen was not respected by the people. An interregnum existed. •Vas Virtually an Abdication, r There is well-settled authority for the position that at the moment when the queen made publio her decision to absolve herself from her wish and support the constitution of 1887, her abdication was complete, if the people chose so to regard it Liliuokalani had only been kept on her throne by the tolerance of ihe white people, who owned 1511,000,000 of the property on the islands. It required nothing but the determined action of what was known as the missionary party to overthrow the queen, and that action had been taken before the troops from the Boston landed. There was no executive head ot the government of Hawaii. It had perished. The report then calls attention to the fact that in landing tho troops there was no demonstration and that in passing the palace they saluted the queen, who was helpless.

Right of Shelter Under the Flag. In view of this state of facts the report lays down the following proposition: “In a country were there is no power of tho law to protect the citizens of the United States there can be no law of nations nor any rule of comity that can rightfully prevent our flag from giving shelter to them under tho protection of our arms ” The committee agrees that such was the condition of the Hawaiian government at the time the troops were landed, and that it was the right of the United States to land troops upon those islands at any place where it was necessary in the opinion ot our minister to protect the citizens of our country. Stevens and Wlltz Exonerated.

Cogniza r,ce is taken of tho charge that the landing or the troops was intended to overthrow the queen with the purpose of procuring tho ultimate annexation of the islands to the United States, but the report declares that the purpose of Minister Stevens and Capt. 'Wiltz was legitimate and that they acted in good faith and with no interests except protecting American citizens and preserving order. The intensity of the queen’s opposition to tho missionaries is referred to. The report speaks of the queen’s desire for the banishment or death of those who had opposed her and says that America should not hesitate in the support of a government set up to oppose her. Willis I)id His Best. Continuing, the report says: “The president says that on the first intimation of these harsh declarations he at once laid them before congress and abandoned the further exerciso of his good offices to bring about a reconciliation. Mjr. Willis, however, regarding his Instructions as continuing to require his Intercession beyond the point where the president considered that it should cease, held a second and third interview with Lilluokalani. Mr. Willis, in what he did, obeyed what he conceived to be his instructions, and being eo distant from Washington It is a matter of regret but not of surprise that there was an apparent want of harmony between his action in continuing his interviews with Lilluokalani after the president had determined that the full duty of tho government had been performed. When a crown falls in any kingdom of the western hemisphere it Is pulverized, and when a scepter departs it departs forever; and American opinion cannot sustain any American ruler In 'ho attempt to restore them, no matter how virtuous and sincere the reasons may be that seem to justify him."

Stevens’ Duty Was Plain. Mr. Stevens’ recognition of the new government Is justified, the report making the point; “It was his duty at the safest possible period to assist, by his recognition, the termination of the interregnum, so : that citizens of the United States might be safely remitted to tho care of that government for tho care of their rights. Afterward, on February 1, 1893, the American minister caused the flag of the United States to be raised and assumed and declared a protectorate over Hawaii. This net on the part of our minister was without authority and was void for want of power. It was disavowed by Secretary Foster and rebuked by Secretary Gresham, and the order to abandon the protectorate and haul down the flag was in accordance with the duty and honor of the United States." The matter of annexation is discussed at some length, and while the whole tenor of the report relating to Ihe subject is favorable to annexation no direct statement was made therein Effect of Recognition. Next the report states that recognition of the provisional government was lawful and has contributed to the peace of Hawaii. The report takes the side of the provisional government as respects the counter revoluiion which the queen provoked and it is exceedingly severe on the ministers of the queen. Missions of itlount and Willis. The right of the president to appoint Mr. Blount Is discussed, the report stating the conclusions to be that such a right no doubt existed and that tho authority given to Mr. Blount and which be exercised was proper. Then Mr Willis’ mission is taken up and the position of the president referred to in the following: "If, in this course of proceedings, the president of the United Sta’.-s had Intended to rompel obedience to what is termed his ‘decision’ Ak the matter, by using the force ot the United

States to assist the queen in being enthroned, that would have been an act of war. entirely beyond his power. But such was not the intention of the president, as shown by contemporaneous sets, by his declarations and by his subsequent treatment of the subject” The report then goes on as follows: “In the public act by which the provisional government of Hawaii was established there was a distinct declaration that that government was to oentlnue until Hawaii was annexed to the United States. That declaration, apart from every other consideration, would have justified the United States in an interference for the protection for the provisional government, which would not have been tolerated under other circumstances.” The document concludes with quotations of official state papers and comments indorsing the actions of Minister Stevens. Views of the Republicans. Senators Sherman, Frye, Dolph and Davis, the republican members, in-their supplemental report say they are in entire accord with the essential findings of the report of the committee as a whole, but add that it is their opinion that the appointment of Commissioner Blount and his gift of authority, without the advice and consent of the senate, was an unconstitutional action; in the second place, that the orders by which the naval force at Honolulu was placed under the authority of Mr. Blount or Mr. Willis was without authority or warrant by law; thirdly, that Mr. Blount’s order to lower the United States ensign from the government building in Honolulu was made without lawful authority: fourthly, that the right of ihe provisional government to exist had been settled conclusively by President Harrison’s recognition of it, and that the president of ihe United States had no authority to reopen determined questions or by any means whatever to attempt to overthrow the provisional governmeut or restore the monarchy which had been displaced, and, finally, the republican members say: ‘‘The avowed opinion of the president of the United States, in substance that it is the duly of the government to make reparation to the queen by endeavoring to reinstate her upon her throne by all constitutional methods, is a clear definition of the policy of the present administration to that end. The instructions to Messrs. Blount and Willis must be construed to be other and more ample forms of expression of that policy.” The Minority Report.

The minority report denies the correctness of the declaration that the only substantial irregularity in tho conduct of Mr. Stevens was his declaration of a protectorate by the United States over Hawaii The right of the United States to interfere with ‘.he internal affairs of Hawaii is also questioned. Tho commander of the Boston is exonerated, but Stevens is criticised as having been controlled by “inopportune” zeal. In concluding, with reference to Stevens, the report, which is signed by M. C. Butler, David Turpie, John M. Daniel and George Gray, says: “His conduct as ihe public representative of this government was direotly conducive to bring about the condition of affairs which resulted in tho overthrow of the queen, the organization of the provisional government, the landing of the United States troops and the attempted scheme ot annexation, and upon this conclusion his conduct is seriously reprehensible and deserving of public censure.” Butler and Turpie for Annexation. In an independent letter Senator Butler says, and his utterance is indorsed by Senator Turpie: “1 am heartily in favor of the acquisition of those islanus by the government of the United States, and in a proper case and on an appropriate occasion I should earnestly advocate the same But I am unwilling to take advantage of internal dissensions in those islauds, for which I believe we are in a measure responsible, to consummate at this time so desirable an object." The testimony covers 739 printed pages. The witnesses include Stevens, Blount, many naval officers and residents of Hawaii. Stevens’ testimony covers sixty pages and is similar to his public explanations. Mr. Blount said he had no intimation when he went to Hawaii that the ex-qneen was to be restored.