University of Hawaii at Manoa Library

Home: The Annexation Of Hawaii: A Collection Of Document
(808) 956-8264

Blount Report: Affairs in Hawaii

[Previous Page] -- [View PDF] -- [ View in MS Word] -- [Next Page]

went out of his way to insult the United States on the floor of this House, and their 
organ carried on the same thing today. It was useless to deny government owner- 
ship in this organ. Government ownership did not alone make an organ. The New 
York Tribune was the organ of the Republican administration, hut it was not owned 
by the government. It was immaterial whether the paper was controlled by the 
cabinet, or as he was informed, partially owned by them. He had reason to believe 
that the cabinet did have something to do with the, Bulletin, and that its late apology, 
which apologized and then rubbed it in alternately, was written with their cogni- 
zance, and that the anti-American tone of the paper was an expression of the atti- 
tude of the cabinet. He did not propose to inquire whether the minister of finance 
had good reason for his resolution, etc. It was sufficient to point out the fact that 
there was the antagonism of the cabinet toward the representative of the American 
interests here.
With the fact staring us in the face, was it not perfect folly to go home and let 
the cabinet stay there expecting them to do anything for Hawaiian agricultural 
interests? He was not talking on an annexation basis, but was speaking on the 
same basis as the attorney-general on the late want of confidence debate, who had 
expressed his views to a dot. The United States would never take possession of 
this country against the will of its people. It was not a live issue now, and when it 
was introduced it was done solely with a view to mislead. Annexation was brought 
up and trotted out regularly, and was simply a substitute for the old missionary 
cry. When an election, etc., was over it would not be heard of again until a similar 
occasion arose. Before being frightened by the annexation scarecrow it was well 
to stop and think. All history belied the idea that the United States would ever 
take this country against the will of the people. It had been the first to recognize 
its independence. Follow the history down. When Lord George Paulet hauled 
down the Hawaiian Hag, what was the position of the United States? A United 
States frigate appeared here, refused to acknowledge the foreign usurper and, in 
defiance of him, fired a royal salute.
Passing over this episode, which the British Government right royally retrieved, 
what was the position taken by the United States at the time of the French usurpa- 
tion? A treaty of cession was signed and sent to Washington, where it lay for four 
solid months untouched, and when the danger was over it was returned without pre- 
tence of any right to retain what had been freely given without solicitation. The 
French have gone on until they now own a hundred islands. Daniel Webster said 
that if the French took the islands they would take them back and restore their 
independence if it took the whole power of the United States to do it. That was 
their position, and it had been consistently maintained ever since.
Again, it had not been foreigners who proposed all this. Kamehameha III himself 
proposed to cede the islands, and just before he was going to do so he was taken sick 
and died. The treaty lies in the foreign office ready for his signature, and may be 
seen by anybody. It was unnecessary to come down to the events of the last twenty 
years. They were within the knowledge of everybody. The United States had, out 
of its bounty, given us a treaty for which it received almost no monetary return, 
which had put millions into the pockets of this country. The advantages of this 
treaty were now gone, and additional ones must be sought. Not only was it a fact 
that the United States had stood between Hawaii and France, between Hawaii and 
England, had held our independence in their hands, had given us a treaty, but dur- 
ing the reign of the present sovereign a ship of war had been asked by Her Majesty's 
Government if it would assist in preserving order against internal enemies. Apart 
from these financial and material interests, common decency and common gratitude 
should prevent these slurs and insinuations on the United States. It was an insult 
to the opposition which was not less loyal than the cabinet, and the ideas were 
advanced simply to keep the cabinet in power. In conclusion, the speaker said it 
made no difference on what ground members united against the cabinet if they 
agreed in having no confidence in it.
Rep. Bipikane said it had always been his practice to scrutinize every cabinet. 
He had watched this one. He saw no advantage to be gained by delay. If there 
was a majority in favor of the cabinet, the resolution would not pass; if there were 
not, it would, and that was the sum of the matter. The resolution brought in be- 
fore was carried, so far as numbers go. He voted for the cabinet then to give them 
a chance to do something. They had done nothing at all. If the cabinet had not 
power enough to remove the marshal, they had better remove themselves. There 
was no use in delay. The question did not need any discussing. He had been 
watching cabinets for thirty years, and never seen anything like this before. Why 
did not the attorney-general put out the men whom the people wanted put out? 
This was the fourth resolution of want of confidence which had come in. That 
ought not to be so. A few small branches had been lopped off, but the stump - the 
marshal - was still there. They voted a want of confidence, and the marshal was 
there still. If they voted another, he would still be there; and if that was the way

Return to Top

Terms of Use  |  UH Mānoa  |  UH System  |  Ask Us
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Library  |  2550 McCarthy Mall  |  Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA
808-956-7214 (Reference)  |  808-956-7203 (Circulation)  |  808-956-7205 (Administration)
808-956-5968 (fax)  |