Here is another reference available online. This publication was put out by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM), reporting home to America on their work throughout the world. Of particular interest to us is what they say about Hawaii. Here for instance is an article appearing in the year of the overthrow, 1893.
The position taken by the United States Secretary of State in regard to affairs at the Hawaiian Islands is simply astounding. That he should suggest that the United States interpose for the restoration of the late Hawaiian Queen seems almost incredible. Even were it admitted, as it is not, that our representatives at Hawaii afforded unwarrantable aid to the revolutionary party, it is a strange suggestion that, after this lapse of time, our government should reseat upon the throne one who had forfeited all her rights to it, and whose influence was only detrimental to the interests of the islands. The so-called royal house of Hawaii has been its curse for years. Queen Liliuokalani had yielded to the corrupting influences which every decent man had recognized as becoming more and more potent in political affairs at the islands, and by influences which she knew how to exert on the worst classes, she secured the passage of the bill giving a home on Hawaii to the infamous Louisiana Lottery which had been driven out of the United States. Restrictions upon the opium traffic, so necessary for the welfare of Hawaiians, were removed. A faithful cabinet was displaced and men of no character were placed in power. But the final act, which was practical…
(Missionary Herald, 12/1893, p. 510.)
…suicide of the monarchy, was the attempt on her part to abrogate the Constitution and by sheer force establish a new one of her own making. Even her subservient ministers refused to endorse the scheme, yet she insisted upon it and sought to incite the populace to stand by her in her autocratic plans. It was then that all the better classes united as one man and deposed her. Never was there a revolution more warranted by facts, never was one more peacefully accomplished, and a queen of worthless character was set aside and the monarchy by its own act came to an end. If Minister Stevens or the commander of the Boston erred in judgment in any transaction, which we are not prepared to admit, yet there is no valid ground for the interference of our government to reverse the revolution months after it was consummated. We do not speak here of the political question as to what it is expedient for the United States to do in reference to a protectorate or to annexation. Opinions of these points may differ, but it would seem as if there were no room for difference of opinion in regard to this question of reestablishing the old monarchy on Hawaii. The best portion of her citizens have asked for some form of connection with the United States. Our government has a perfect right to say yes or no to all these proposals. And the Provisional Government at Honolulu has a right to say to us, “Either accept our proposal or hands off.” We regret to be obliged to speak in such terms of propositions that come from our national administration. We certainly should not do so did we not believe that any attempt to restore the Hawaiian Queen to her throne would be a gross outrage, and would be followed by the most serious consequences to the moral and religious interests of the islands, as well as to their material prosperity. We cannot think that our people will tolerate any intervention which has for its object the replacing upon the throne of a sovereign whose influence will be only for evil.
(Missionary Herald, 12/1893, p. 511.)