About Hawaii

During my recent yearly speech to Congress, I briefly outlined our relationship with Hawaii and stated my intent to provide further information on this issue if further advice is possible. Although I am not now in a position to give a definitive account of a definitive amendment to the real state of affairs, I am confident that the recent problems, both here and in Hawaii, which now stand in the way of a resolution by the authorities of the issue, make it appropriate and appropriate that the issue should be directed to the wider authorities and judgement of Congress, with a full declaration of past efforts to resolve the state of affairs and an account of the reflections that have determined my actions.

To disregard our nation's sincerity and to seek to control our behaviour through the wish for a new type of governance that is not our own, I have completely misunderstood the nature and nature of our administration and the behaviour that the consciences of our nation demand of its officials.

By the time the current government began its work, the Senate had examined a contract for the annexation of Hawaii' Isles to the United States. This special contract of attachment was given added importance because it provided for a renunciation of the undiminished US traditions by adding to our territories marine isles more than two thousand leagues from our closest coastline.

This may not in itself require intervention in the conclusion of an agreement concluded by a former administration, but the documentation presented to the Senate showed that we were offered property of Hawaii by a temporary administration appointed to replace the unconstitutional island sovereign, who had been deposed, and it did not appear that such a temporary administration had the penalty of a people' s revolu-tion or electoral right.

Obviously, on Saturday, January 14, a so-called Security Committee, allegedly the cause of the rebellion against the constitutionally elected Hawaiian authorities was organised; that on Monday, January 16, the United States armed services arrived in Honolulu from a navy ship moored in their port; that on January 17, the pattern of a temporary administration was perfect, and that on the same date a declaration in which their officials were appointed was drawn up and reread at the Hawaiian administration buildings; that the Minister

that, two working days later, on 19 January, the officials who represent this administration arrived in San Francisco on 28 January and in Washington on 3 February on a steamship specially hired for the event; that they had their first meeting with the Foreign Minister the next morning and on 11 February, when the Annexion Agreement was virtually signed, and that it was formalised on 14 January and sent to the Senate on 15 February.

Between the launch of the plan for a temporary administration in Hawaii on 14 January and the filing of the Annexion Agreement with that administration with the Senate, the total period was 32 workingdays, 15 of which were taken by Hawaii' Commissioners on their trip to Washington.

As the President who accompanies the agreement stated, "the fall of the empire was in no way supported by this government", and in a document from the Secretary of State to the President, which was also presented to the Senate with the agreement, the following dispatch is sent: "When the temporary administration took over the administration building, there were no United States forces or officials present or participating in the procedure.

Only after the queen's resignation and the actual ownership of the administration building, the archive, the treasury, the military base, the policestation and all possible machines of the administration did the temporary administration receive official approval. "But there was also a rally that followed this contract, which was initialled by the Queen and her secretaries at the moment when they gave way to the temporary administration, which expressly indicated that it gave in to the supreme power of the United States, whose secretary had induced the landing of US forces in Honolulu, and said that he would endorse this provisor.

When it is the case, nothing other than concealing its truths could cause our administration to deal with the appearance of a new administration, nor could a contract resulting from the actions mentioned in the protests be deliberately considered by the Senate. It was therefore my obligation to remove the Senate contract for review and, in the meantime, to initiate an exact, complete and unbiased inquiry into the facts concerning the submission of the Hawaiian constitution and the rate in its place of the temporary state.

I believe that the account, together with the relevant evidences and other evidences now before Congress, or now being presented to it, justify the claim that when the President was persuaded to present the contract to the Senate with the assertion that "the toppling of the tyranny was in no way encouraged by this government", and when the Senate was persuaded to welcome and debate it on this grounds, both the President and the Senate were erroneous.

There is no need to explain the grounds which in January 1893 prompted a significant number of the US and other overseas businessmen and dealers based in Honolulu to support the Hawaiian annexation to the United States. All we need to do is take notice of the fact that the proposal has been eagerly supported by the minister who represents the United States in that state.

Nearly two month before the first open act leading to the Hawaii government's submission and the attempt to move the country to the United States on 19 November 1892, he wrote a long note to the Secretary of State in which the case of attachment was discussed in detail for ethical, peo-lific and economic reasons.

It points to the depletion of Hawaii' s interests in the use of the McKinley Act and the trend towards further devaluation of its sugar assets, unless a favourable discharge mechanism is provided. It strongly opposes the current regime in Hawaii and strongly rejects it. Its once-famous base is now only an obstacle to good governance - an obstacle to the island's wealth and wellbeing.

" As a British or United States territory coronary settlement, the changes in governance could easily be made and good jurisdiction ensured. The fate and the great interests of the United States in the Pacific clearly show who need not be in charge of the governance of these Pacific Isles on any remote outing.

They could be ruled as readily as any of the United States' territories under a regional administration. "Hawaii has achieved the separation of ways. "I think one of two course of action is essential, either courageous and energetic annexations or a "customs union", a submarine cord from the California coastline to Honolulu, Pearl Harbor, which is constantly being transferred to the United States, with an implicit but unspecified US patronage over the isles.

It is my belief that the former is the better, the one that will be much more beneficial for the island, and the cheaper and least awkward one in the end for the United States. While it was prudent that the United States, through Secretary Marcy, offered thirty-eight years ago to spend $100,000 to ensure an attachment contract, it certainly cannot be chimeric or imprudent to spend $100,000 to ensure the attachment in the near-term.

Today, the United States has fivefold its 1854 fortune and the causes of annihilation are much greater than then. From this point of view, it seems appropriate to cite also a ministerial document sent to the Secretary of State on 8 March 1892, almost a year before the first steps towards annión.

Noting that the current government of Hawaii could be overthrown by an ordered and non-violent upheaval, Minister Stevens states: "This is what we need to do: "Normally, the policy seems to be to restrict the landings and movements of US military personnel in alien seas and domination solely to protecting the embassy of the United States and the life and properties of its people.

However, since the United States' relationship with Hawaii is extraordinary and the United States officers have done something extraordinary here in previous years in the context of the mess, I would like to know to what extent the current minister and marine commandant can depart from the existing set of internationally accepted norms and precedent in the cases mentioned in the first part of this message.

"Hawaii's bulb is now fully ripened and this is the United States' gold bulb to pick. "Another example of the work of this embassy's ambassador is that, on the date on which the above mentioned note was sent, he was apparently no longer able to hold back his enthusiasm, issuing a declaration in which he took over the defence of the Hawaii islands "on behalf of the United States" and stated that this operation was carried out "in anticipation and with reservation of negotiation in Washington".

" Obviously, this acceptance of a protectionist state was immediately rejected by our government, but the US banner stayed above the government office in Honolulu and the armed services stayed at the crime site until April and after Mr. Blount's appearance, when both were taken out. Briefly presenting the events that subverted the Hawaiian government in the interest of annexing it to the United States will show the real tone of the deal.

"in order to ensure the lasting preservation of order and justice and the safeguarding of Hawaiian live, freedom and ownership. That very same date and immediately after such a postponement, the Steering Group, which was not prepared to take further action without the involvement of the US Secretary of State, turned to him, noting that there was a threat to security and that there was a threat to human dignity and property:

"This is why we cannot defend ourselves without help and are praying for the defense of the United States armed services. By the time the notice was posted and served, the commission seemed to have had neither a man nor a weapon under their orders, and after they were served, they became so panicky that they sent part of their number to question the minister and ask him not to bring the United States armed force in until the next mornings.

So on January 16, 1893, between four and five in the afternoons, a section of United States Steamer Boston naval troops arrived in Honolulu with two guns. The Honolulu base was in itself an act of conflict, unless it was conducted either with the agreement of the Hawaiian government or for the honest intent of safeguarding the endangered life and properties of the United States.

However, there is no claim to such approval from the Queen's administration, which was uncontested at the moment and was both the de facto and de law one. Indeed, the current regime was protesting instead of demanding the arrival of an army.

There' s so little reason for the pretext that such powers have ended up for the safety of US lives and properties. They would have been deployed near such land to defend it, rather than in the distant and commanding the government of Hawaiii.

In his frank statement, Admiral Skerrett, the commander of our Pacific Maritime Operations, said that, in his view, the position of the army was not advisable if they were to land in a remote part of the town to protect the US people, their homes, offices, embassy and embassy, but the chosen position was a wiser one if the army was to land in support of the temporary state.

Had there been a danger to lives and properties that would have required such a warlike order, Britain and other interested overseas forces would not have lagged behind the United States to defend their people. Men, wives and kids were on the street as always, and nothing changed the normal routines or disrupted the normal silence, except the Boston Navy landings and marches through the city to their new neighborhood.

The fact that the Security Committee itself, after calling for the US Armed Services to land because of the defence of the threat to lives and property, asked the Minister to delay the operation, made clear the untruth of their accounts of the current threat to lives and property. 3. They saw a threat that developed out of their own culpable intent, knowing that although they did not exist then, they would certainly pursue their attempts to bring down the Queen's government without the help of the United States armed services.

It seems, for example, that Hawaii has been taken by the United States armed services without the agreement or desire of the island governments or of anyone other than the Secretary of State of the United States. That is why the US occupying Honolul militarily on that date was totally unjustified, either as an assent or as an occupancy that became necessary because of the threats to US lives and properties.

As the United States powers now sited on the stage and advantageously, the board continued to execute their initial draft. The next day, Tuesday the seventeenth, they gathered to perfect the provisional government's plans and focused on their chief officer, ten of whom were from the thirteen members of the Security Comittee.

From one to two o'clock, by troops and in various ways to prevent the news, and after they had first taken the precautions of determining whether someone was there to resist them, they went to the administration buildings to declare the new state. There was no obvious indication of oppositions, and as a result an US national began to study the declaration from the stairs of the administration buildings almost entirely without an auditor.

Before the end of the readings, it is said that a whole series of people, valued at 50 to 100, some of whom were armoured and some of whom were not, had assembled through the board to give them help and trustforth. It is not important because the only control in the whole matter was undoubtedly the US Navy, who, under armament and with gunfire on standby only seventy-six metres away, controlled the area.

"until the conditions of unification had been bargained and arranged with the United States." Within an hours of the announcement of the proclamation being read and before five o'clock in reply to a question on the Queen's and her Cabinet's behalf, the US Secretary of State had previously arranged to acknowledge that he had done so.

By the time our minister recognised the temporary administration, the only foundation on which it was based was the fact that the Security Committee had ruled it to be there. This was neither de facto nor de law a state. The fact that it was not in possesion of the estate of the government and the authorities that authorized its approval is indicated by a remark in the documents of the legation in Honolulu, which the proclaimed leader of the temporary administration made to Minister Stevens on January 17, 1893, in which he acknowledged the minister's approval of the temporary administration and explained that it was not yet in possesion of the railway building (the place where a large number of Queen's forces were stationed), although the responsible officer of the queen required the same.

This unjustified acknowledgement by our minister, however, confused the Queen's government in an extremely dangerous way. Firstly, she owned the castle, the military base and the army and had at least five hundred fully armoured men and several guns.

In fact, the entire militaristic power of her realm stood by her side and was at her side, while the Committee for Security had found during the real quest that there were very few weapons in Honolulu that were not in the government's employ. If the Queen had been able to deal with the rebels alone in this state of affairs, her course would have been clear and the outcome unmistakeable.

However, the United States had joined forces with its foes, acknowledging them as the real Hawaiian administration and putting them and their supporters in positions of resistance to legal authorities. It knew that it could not stand up to the United States' might, but it thought it could rely securely on its just.

Accordingly, a few inches after the Secretary of the United States had recognized the temporary administration, the Queen handed over the building to the Palestine, the army barrack and the policestation, by all means of the country's army, after assuring her that her case would subsequently be examined in Washington, and while she protested that she was surrendering to the United States, the Queen's army,

the Secretary of State of the United States had arranged for the US force to land in Honolulu and stated that he would assist the interim administration and that it had given up its power to avoid military clashes and human lives, and only until the United States, on presentation of the facts, reversed the actions of its agent and reinstated them to the power which it was claiming as the sovereignty of the Hwaiian islands.

The protests were sent to the head of the temporary administration, who then confirmed his acknowledgement of delivery. While the conditions of the protests were unambiguously interpreted by those who believed they were forming the temporary administration, no doubt accused with the certainty that, instead of definitively giving up their powers, the Queen had asked the United States judiciary to restore her sovereignty, the temporary administration hurried with this unreplyed protests in its hands to bargain with the United States about the Queen's continued exile from sovereignty and the selling of her realm.

It was in jeopardy of taking the stance that it had actually established a provisional administration on overseas land to acquire through this agent area that we had wrongly placed in its hands. Having proclaimed their sovereignty of Mexico, the Texas citizens decided that after the recognition of their sovereignty by the United States, they would aspire to join the Union.

That is in stark contradiction to the premature acknowledgement of a regime that has been used in an open and conceded manner for the purposes of bidding for us for territorial attachment. It is my belief that an open and thorough analysis of the facts will compel us to believe that the temporary administration is the result of an armoured US outbreak.

It is unlikely that fair-thinking individuals with the proof they have will say that the hawaiian authorities were ousted by the island communities or that the temporary authorities ever did exist with their approval. Mr President, I do not realise that any member of this administration is claiming that the public would support it through its electoral rights if it were given the right to cast its votes on the issue.

While, of course, we sympathise with all efforts to achieve a type of reublican administration, it was the declared US policies to give the foreigners the same liberty and autonomy in managing their internal matters that we have always demanded for ourselves; and it was our custom to recognise the existence of democratic regimes once it turned out that they were backed by the state.

To illustrate this ruling, I need only mention the 1889 Brazilian revolutions when our minister was ordered to recognise the Republic "once the Brazilian peoples should have given their consent to its creation and maintenance"; the 1891 Chilean revolutions when our minister was ordered to recognise the new regime "when it was approved by the people"; and the 1892 Venezuelan revolutions when our acknowledgment was given on condition that the new regime was "fully constituted, in national and state of power".

Her rightful government of Hawaii was toppled without pulling a blade or launching a gunshot by a lawsuit of which every move that can be claimed for sure can be traced directly and is dependant for its very existence on the United States government which acts through its own ambassadors and navy agents.

However, for the infamous preferences of the American Secretary of State for Annexion, the Security Commission, which should be described as the Annexion Commission, would never have been there. However, for the United States Armed Services to land on misguided pretenses that respect the threat to lives and belongings, the Commission would never have subjected itself to the pain and punishment of betrayal by subverting the Queen's state.

However, for the US Armed Services to be in the immediate proximity and able to provide all necessary safeguards and assistance, the Commission would not have proclamated the temporary administration from the levels of the administration buildings. Lastly, for the lawlessness of the US armed services to occupy Honolulu under misguided pretences and for the Secretary Stevens' acknowledgement of the temporary administration, when the US armed services were their only force, the Queen and her administration would never have given in to the temporary administration, not even for a period of while and with the only aim of subjecting their case to the United States' clear, uprightness.

Therefore, since I believe that the United States could not under the above conditions, without rightly accepting the insinuation of the acquisition of the island in an unjustified manner, I will not re-submit the Annexion Agreement to the Senate for examination, and in the directions to Minister Willis, a copy of which is attached to this Embassy, I have instructed him to notify the interim administration of this.

Our government's braggadocio was to try to do right in everything, regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of those it has to do with. An act of hostilities, involving a US diplomat and without the authorities of Congress, overthrew the rule of a weak but kind and trusting population.

It has not taken any kind of political shape, either in the Republic or otherwise, but has instead been left as a pure law-enforcement body or an aristocratic hierarchy formed without the consent of the population. In fact, the proponents of this administration claim that the Hawaiian nation is unsuitable for a people's administration and openly state that it can best be governed by indiscriminate or de facto powers.

The unscript is more conscientiously bound, if possible, by the unscript saying that bind his consciousness than he does the commitment whose violation makes him subject to obligations; and the United States, which aims to assert itself as one of the most informed countries, would do grave inequity to its people if they were to apply a level of honour and morals other than a high one to their own people.

For this reason, the United States cannot really be put in a situation where it approves an injustice under its own committee, nor can it approve it in advance. What is it? For this reason, it cannot allow itself to refrain from rectifying an offence caused by an abuses of powers by officials dressed in their authorities and in their uniforms; and for the same reason, if a weak but kind state is in jeopardy of being deprived of its autonomy and supremacy by an abusing of the name and might of the United States, the United States cannot neglect to justify its honour and its spirit of fairness by a serious attempt to make all sorts of reparations.

It did not give itself up to the temporary administration, but to the United States. It did not give up in an absolute and permanent way, but on a temporary and conditional basis, until the United States could take the facts into account. Moreover, the temporary administration has accepted its capitulation in this way and under these conditions, not only by implied agreement, but also by the good deeds of some members of this administration, who demanded their peaceful subjugation, not only to prevent the shedding of blood, but because it could implicitly rely on the fairness of the United States, and that the whole issue would eventually be dealt with in Washington.

Members of the temporary administration and their followers, although they have no right to the utmost affection, were encouraged and supported unacceptably by our embassy's diplomat, leading to their current situation of rebellion against the Queen's administration. That feeling is strongly supported by my fear of doing nothing that would either lead to tough reprisals from the Queen or force and shedding blood in any area.

Convinced that the Queen, as well as her foes, would be willing to take a course that would fulfil these requirements and in light of the fact that both the Queen and the interim administration once appeared to have agreed in a referral to the United States Gov, and in the light of the fact that both the Queen and the interim administration once agreed,

Considering further that the temporary administration, by its own stated restriction, should in any case only continue until the conditions of unification have been bargained and settled with the United States of America", I was hoping that after assuring the members of this administration that such unification could not be carried out, I could achieve a calm adaptation of the problem.

In the light of these wishes and objectives, and not without regard to the intrinsic confusion of the situa-tion and the restrictions on my powers, I have ordered Minister Willis to inform the Queen and her followers of my wish to help restore the statute prior to the lawlessness of the US Armed Services in Honolulu on 16 January last year, if such a recovery could take place under conditions of both mercy and fairness for all interested political groups.

Under the proposed terms, as the statements show, there is a general pardon for those affected, introduced by the temporary regime, and an acknowledgement of all their good faith actions and covenants. To sum up, they demand that the past be bury and that the re-established regime regain its power as if its continuation had not been upset.

Those terms have proven unacceptable to the Queen and although she has been told that she will insist and that the President's attempts to help reinstall her government will stop, I have not yet found out that she is prepared to give her consent.

As a result, the review that my intentions have come across has hindered their presentations to the members of the temporary administration, while unhappy false reports of the state of affairs and excessive expressions of our people's feelings seem to have violated the prospect of effective conciliation by the execution. That is why I am presenting this statement and the associated documents, which include Mr Bount's account, the proofs and explanations he took up in Honolulu, the directions to Mr Blount and Minister Willis and the letters relating to this matter.