Anna Berry, daughter of Kentucky congressman, speaks on annexation, 1898.

THE INJUSTICE OF ANNEXATION

As Viewed by an American Woman Miss Anna E Berry of Newport—The Kentucky Congressman’s Daughter Writes Entertainingly of the Native Hawaiians—A Petition to the President.

[Among the ladies who accompanied the congressional party to Hawaii in September was Miss Anna Berry, daughter of Congressman Berry of Kentucky, who has written charmingly of the islands. She brought back many souvenirs of her visit, which are to be seen in her Newport home. The best of all is the Royal Hawaiian standard, the flag which was floating over Queen Liliuokalani when she was deposed. It is to be noted that Miss Berry returned to America with a woman’s sense of the injustice of annexation, from the viewpoint of the native Hawaiian, while the men of the party came back a unit for annexation. The Hawaiian minister to whom Miss Berry refers as a descendant of a Kentucky Governor is Rev. Desha, of Hilo. His grandfather was Governor Desha, of Kentucky, and his father was Isaac B. Desha, who committed a sensational murder at Doggett’s Tavern, a well-known inn of early Kentucky days on the Licking River. The murderer was sentenced to death, and saved by his own father’s pardoning power. The case was one of the most remarkable in American criminal history. He fled to Hawaii where one of his half-native sons is a leading Kanaka minister, and the other is a postal employee.—The Editor of the Kentucky Post.

The recent visit of Senator Morgan and four members of the United States House of Representatives to the Hawaiian Islands aroused among the various peoples of the “Paradise of the Pacific” sentiments and feelings as opposite as the poles. There are indeed various peoples in Hawaii—a very scrapbag of a population—the good with the bad. Here Portuguese and Chinese, Japanese and Germans, Americans and natives jostle one another. Continue reading

Sanford B. Dole, the Congregationalists, and Annexation, 1902.

THE HAWAIIAN SITUATION.

On Monday evening, April 28 last, Governor Dole was the guest of the Congregational Club of Boston. Elsewhere in this issue will be found a sketch made by Dole of the Hawaiian situation. It is characteristic of the man. Having the full support of the Administration behind him he is not afraid to say in public what he has been thinking in private for many long years. Let us see and take up his points one by one.

Point No. 1.—”The monarchy was overthrown and annexation was accomplished for the sake of good government for the islands; that is, for their benefit.”—It is true! Annexation was accomplished, by a handful of Congregationalists because the reciprocity treaty between the United States and Hawaii was in imminent danger of being abrogated. The monarchy was overthrown, so as to save the $40 per ton duty on sugar. It was then as it is now for the Congregationalists:—Money before principle.

Point No. 2:—”We have given you everything we have by being annexed.”—That is, Sanford B. Dole, and his Congregationalist friends have given to the United States that which did not belong to them. With the help of an American cruiser, American marines and an American Minister, they have robbed the native Hawaiians of their country so as to enable a few Congregationalist planters to keep up receiving big dividends from their sugar stocks which would have been materially cut down had a $40 duty been imposed upon each ton of sugar. The Springfield Republican adds the following comment to Point No. 2: “But the second point that they have given us all they have is not at all consistent with his first point that they sought Annexation for the benefit of the Islands, and it shows that they are still trying to work the United States for the benefit of the Hawaiians.” Continue reading

Mafia? 1893.

AN AMERICAN MAFIA.

“The Queen never will be restored to the throne, for she will be shot within 24 hours, and every man who takes office under her will be shot also—we have men secretly sworn to do it.”

Such was the remark made to the writer by a brainless young sprig of the “citizens reserve,” such is the tenor of numerous open threats of the canaille composing the annexation club, the citizens reserve and the American league organizations that pretending to be patriotically American are in fact veritable nests of socialism, fenianism and mafia.

To their shame be it said that these mafias are organized under men calling themselves Americans, men who heretofore have been regarded as respectable and intelligent citizens: Hatch, Castle, Wilder, Jones, Smith, McGrew, Emerson, and so on, whose names will pass into history as knavish pirates in a plot to steal a nation and compel America to receive the stolen goods.

A recent article in the Holomua warned that a wave of insanity had struck Honolulu in accordance with a well known theory of cycles. The malady appears to be growing worse, for certain it is, that all the men and women concerned in the overthrow of the Queen, the terrorism and misgovernment of a P. G. military despotism, and the present display of hostilities against the United States, all act like people demented. Continue reading

Kaulia’s invitation to Morgan, 1897.

KAULIA TO HEAR MORGAN

ANTI-ANNEXATIONIST LEADER SIGNS INVITATION.

Says His People are Anxious to Learn From the Veteran Senator What Annexation Would Mean to Them.

Senator Morgan has accepted the invitation of the native Hawaiians to address them in public meeting upon the political relations between Hawaii and the United States.

Among the signers of the invitation is James K. Kaulia, president of the Hawaiian Patriotic League and president of the Aloha Aina Society. Mr. Kaulia is bitterly opposed to annexation and he is at the head of the opposition among his own countrymen. It was Mr. Kaulia who was largely instrumental in getting a few Hawaiians to gather in an abortive mass meeting at the Union Square last month, and adopt the resolutions protesting against annexation which Mr. Kaulia afterwards at the head of a committee of fifteen presented to President Dole and his Cabinet.

Mr. Kaulia states that he as well as the members of the societies he represents are anxious to hear Senator Morgan and they are truly grateful to him that he has consented to speak.

The invitation sent to the Senator, as well as the signers, is a follows:

“Honolulu, Sept. 24, 1897.

“To Senator John T. Morgan, City:

“We the undersigned native Hawaiians desire very much to hear you in an address upon the political relations between Hawaii and the United States and particularly desire your views as to the condition of the native Hawaiians and the position they would occupy under closer political relations with the United States.

“We therefore invite you to deliver a public address to the Hawaiians in this city at your convenience upon the above subjects, and if you accept, will make all necessary provisions for the holding of the meeting.

“Yours very respectfully,

“D. L. NAONE,
“J. KALUA KAHOOKANO,
“J. M. POEPOE,
“R. W. WILCOX,
“JOHN LOT KAULUKOU,
“JAMES K. KAULIA,
“President Hawaiian Patriotic League and President Aloha Aina Society.
“S. M. KAAUKAI.”

The meeting will be held on Thursday evening, at the Opera House, and Senator Morgan states that he will treat the question to the best of his ability.

(Hawaiian Star, 9/28/1897, p. 1)

KAULIA TO HEAR MORGAN

The Hawaiian Star, Volume IV, Number 1386, Page 1. September 28, 1897.

The Independent speaks out, 1897.

Ed. The Independent:—

“The little knot of noisy royalists,” as the Star chooses to call the overwhelming majority of the legal voters of 1892, numbering about 15,000, who in the near future will be called upon to decide by a plebiscite as to the form of government they wish to live under is now by the natural whirl of events fast approaching their object. When the far astray Alabama Senator arose and advocated the passing of the annexation bill at the closing of the last session of Congress, no notice was taken of him, but the bill was laid over until the December term, to be killed in short order, for the following reasons. In the first place the American people excepting a few cranks of the Stevens and Morgan stamp, had far rather have Hawaii as an independent nation than annex it. The silent mutterings of Russia, Germany and France against America annexing the islands, with England quietly watching and enjoying the game, as she well knows, that the moment America reaches out in mid-ocean land grabbing, that moment dies the Monroe doctrine, which America now foresees. Tempest in a teapot, this little fuss and feathers oligarchic trundle bed minority, will end thus: Before next January there will be an understanding between America, England, France and perhaps Germany, for a joint protection of this nation against all other powers. Those nations will then say to Uncle Sam, that we cannot protect a small band of armed traitors against a people who have for the last five years been crying to the world for justice! Therefore, order at once the abrogation of the treaty between Japan and Hawaii, that Hawaii may regulate her plantation labor as the necessity for labor is required, and then in no uncertain tone demand a plebiscite to be taken and see that it is done fairly, which is but simple justice to that doubly wronged nation. That is the play now being prepared to be placed upon the stage of Hawaii, and performed to the admiration and joy of her people.

Au Revoir.

(Independent, 10/16/1897, p. 2)

Ed. The Independent

The Independent, Volume V, Number 716, Page 2. October 16, 1897.

The Evening Bulletin chimes in, 1897.

Other groups in the Pacific have been taken under the wings of great nations, for their own substantial benefit as has already been proved, within the past ten years. Even Samoa would be no exception if any one of the three Powers ruling her had been given the exclusive control, and the unsettled condition of that group is simply a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. But it is objected that the Hawaiian people, in point of civilization and capacity for affairs, are away above comparison with other Polynesians. To this objection it is fair to reply with the question: “Is there not one particular nation to which the Hawaiians are indebted for the chief elements of their distinction, in addition to and apart from their own personal qualities of mentality and teachableness, docility and hospitality?” This answered in the affirmative, as it cannot otherwise be, there naturally follows the question: “Cannot that one nation then be trusted to bear the Hawaiians more closely in its arms to higher planes of civic competence and moral and material prosperity?” With the past advantages and opportunities of the Hawaiians thrown in their path, moreover, there is no reason to suppose that the Samoans and Tahitians should not be every whit their equals, in all respects of credit, today. Still further it is a fair statement to make, that the interests of their great patron nation, the United States, in the Hawaiians’ country are comparatively greater—making every allowance for vested native rights—than the interests of other nations in the countries of the Pacific that they have respectively appropriated. The United States has fully and fairly paid the Hawaiians for the limited proprietary title she bids fair soon to claim over these islands. “Limited” is a word here used advisedly, for when admitted to the Union this country will have reserved to it the privileges of self-government in all matters not federal. Senator Morgan made a good point in his reply to Mr. Kaulia published in the Independent of Saturday, when he intimated in effect that the United States claimed certain intrinsic rights in these islands, and that there is no more reason why the question of annexation should be submitted to a direct vote of the Hawaiians than for submitting it to a vote of the people of the United States. In other words, the United States sowed the seed of civilization and prosperity here, and now comes to reap the legitimate and natural harvest. Uncle Sam is going to “take in” a new piece of ground on his farm, and all the living denizens of that lot will be the better for it.

(Evening Bulletin, 10/19/1897, p. 4)

Other groups in the Pacific...

Evening Bulletin, Volume IV, Number 739, Page 4. October 19, 1897.

Senator John T. Morgan replies, 1897.

MORGAN’S REPLY.

The Senator From Alabama Answers J. K. Kaulia’s Open Letter.

He Defends the Position of Himself and the Annexationists.

Honolulu, Oct. 12, 1897.

Mr. James K. Kaulia,

Dear Sir,—A pressure of engagements has necessarily delayed an answer to your open letter.

Having no disposition to interfere in Hawaiian affairs or to attempt to influence the opinions of the Hawaiians on the subject of annexation to the United States, or to any country, I do not wish to enter upon a discussion, which you invite, as to any views I have heretofore expressed on that subject.

A preference is quite a different matter from an alternative, when the latter is forced upon us by circumstances beyond our control. As my government has not submitted to a vote of our people, the question of our willingness to accept the annexation of Hawaii, and has not a proceeding so unusual and so idle, I have not thought it necessary, or fair, that this question should be submitted to a popular vote in Hawaii, Your Constitution provides for annexation without such a vote. But I would regret to have you feel that I am indifferent to the wishes of your people on this subject; I wish them to feel that our motives are honorable; that our sentiments are only those of sincere regard for their happiness, and that our course towards them will be wise and just.

I have said in the Senate that if I was a Hawaiian citizen I would not prefer annexation to any country. If I were a Cuban I would have the same preference for a separate and independent Republic, won by Cuban blood. This is in the sense of national pride, which must always yield to national safety.

But the present condition of Cuba and of Hawaii does not admit of such a preference.

Cuba has found that she must be a republic in order to escape the terrors of foreign monarchial rule, and Hawaii must also remain a republic to avoid sinking into a like condition.

If Hawaii relapses into monarchy she will be cut off from any reliance on the protection of the United States. In that event we could not accept her into our Union, nor could we, in any event, accept Hawaii as a dependency, or colony. We have no such powers under our Constitution.

When the alternative is presented as it is, whether I would prefer annexation to the United States rather than have Hawaii sink into a petty monarchy, to be ruled by some foreign country, I would prefer to save the liberties of the people, through annexation, to a tawdry show of royalty by a few persons set in authority over them, who would be compelled to do the bidding of some monarch. In the American Union Hawaii would be really independent, and would be forever safe against any foreign interference. She would not be smothered with Asiatic immigrants, nor would she ever become a sugar colony of a monarch, as Cuba is, to be robbed and oppressed by non-resident nabobs, and then flayed alive on the first utterance of a plea or protest in the name of humanity. Finding that it is necessary to act in order to meet the clandestine movements of some citizens and others who are subjects of foreign monarchies, for the destruction of republican government in Hawaii, I would prefer annexation to the United States, rather than risk the danger of having to fight for the life of the country, as Cuba is forced to do.

When Japau wished to annex Formosa to her Empire, she did not consult the Chinese there, to ascertain their wishes. When by a process of emigration Japan has filled these islands with her people, who still owe allegiance to the Emperor, she will ask no questions of the Hawaiians whether they wish to become Japanese subjects; nor will your people be able to resist this quiet process of absorption, you will sink, as the rains sink into the thirsty soil.

If your people were all united in their preference for republican government, I would, if I were a citizen of Hawaii, now prefer her separate independence, as a matter of pride, yet I remember how costly, to Ireland, a like feeling has been, and how it has lost to her people all hope of separate national independence, but the Hawaiian Islands are not independent of fate, however much their native people may desire a separate government. If I belonged to that race I would sacrifice any preference, either of pride or convenience, rather than be suffocated with people who have nothing in common with them in religion, or in their ideas of government. I would unite with the American people in their support of free, constitutional government rather than see any republic relapse into a monarchy, in this Western Hemisphere.

Very respectfully,

John T. Morgan.

(Independent, 10/16/1897, p. 3)

MORGAN'S REPLY.

The Independent, Volume V, Number 716, Page 3. October 16, 1897.