pertaining to arrests), and we were by him informed that we were arrested for conspiracy. In description of our several offences the Attorney-General accused us of having each attended a meeting of conspirators, but which meetings were never attended by either of us, nor, to the best of my belief, have the meetings ever been held as alleged. We have not since heard of those alleged meetings, but, on the contrary, are credibly informed that the officers of Government, for some weeks after our arrest, confessed to our friends that they had no sufficient evidence to justify placing either of us on trial. But after the creation of the Military Commission pressure and promises were brought to bear upon rioters by the Government to obtain evidence against white men suspected and hated by the Government, my brother and myself included. The record of evidence in my brother's case will show that Nowiein denied having been so influenced, but his release from custody and departure for another island of this group since then is eloquent in contradiction of his assertion. By this means the Government secured such evidence as they presented against by brother, and their efforts in that direction, both as to my brother and myself, were unceasingly exerted on all hands. Thus, for example, a British subject, named Charles E. Dunwell, was thrust into prison without any charge against him (as I understand), and he was to the knowledge of myself and many other inmates of the prison brutally confined in the dark cell of the gaol for many hours, for the purpose, as stated to him by the Marshal and others, of extorting from him some evidence against my brother. For proof of this fact I respect fully refer you to Dunwell's statement as furnished to you. The Government sent to Hilo, 250 miles, arrested a British subject named F. M. Wakefield (a practising attorney), charged him with treason, gave him solitary confinement for forty-eight hours, and brought him to Honolulu in order to extort from him evidence against me, a course followed presumably because Mr. Wakefield had formerly been for several months in my office, and was my confidential friend. Numerous Hawaiians, supposed by the Government to be in my confidence, were imprisoned for weeks in the effort to extort from them evidence damaging to me, but all, to the best of my knowledge, without success. My office clerk, a young Chinaman, versed in several languages, and for years acquainted with my mode of life, was arrested and placed in the dark cell of the station-house, in an unsuccessful effort in the same direction, and he and his wife were visited by the inquisitors of the Government, and separately cajoled and threatened with the same object. In consequence particularly of my apprehension, thus reasonably excited, of the results to be expected from a trial by an illegal Military Commission before whom innocence is no defence, and partially because of the necessities of my business and my family interests, that I should obtain release from imprisonment, and also, in part, because of the threatened injury to my mental health in case of my longer restraint under the existing conditions of solitary confinement, I accepted, on the 23rd February last, the proposition of the Government to release me from prison on condition that I should agree to leave the country, not to return until the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with the approval of the Marshal (a subordinate officer, in charge of the police), should consent to such return. I signed an agreement to that effect, not in anywise admitting any complicity in the riot, or guilt of any other offence, and signed it under duress, as a means of escaping from a most arbitrary, unjust, and illegal imprisonment. I was further impelled to that step by the information that the Marshal had openly boasted, soon after my arrest, that I should never again be allowed to practise law in Hawaii, and in view of my reluctance to re-embark in controversies with the officers of Government, which I was convinced their unscrupulous and malignant characters would force upon me in case I should remain in Honolulu and continue in legal practice. In other words, the persecutions to which I had been subjected, and which were threatened for the future, not only by the express words of the Marshal, but by those of other partizans of the Government. brought to my notice, coupled with the excited state of feeling against all who declined subservient submission to the pretensions of the dominant faction, convinced that the prudent thing for me was to accept ment's offer of liberty, and withdraw temporarily fron this stage of action, until the flames of hate and prejudi, shall have time to subside. I protest, wever, anc submit that it amounts, in effect, to my deportation fro the country, against my will, and without process of la or any legal warrant; and I further protest and alleg that I propose to carry out my agreement to leave th me Gover n country merely as a means of avoiding other results at the hands of Government, equally unjust and illegal, and more serious to my health, my liberty, and my estate. CLARENCE W. ASHFORD. Subscribed and sworn to before me, at Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, this 4th day of March, A.D. 1895. THOMAS RAIN WALKER, British Vice-Consul. Enclosure 9. Statement of G. Carson Kenyon, dated March 19, 1895. [Not printed: See claim of Kenyon, p. 293.] 66 Enclosure 10. Extract from Statement of E. B. Thomas, sworn [Not printed: See claim of E. B. Thomas, p. 137. EXTRACT Comprises that portion of the affidavit from: On the 7th January last" to "after a long argument I was released at half past six that evening without trial and without any conditions being imposed upon me.' Sir, ANNEX 14. Mr. Hatch to Mr. Hawes, August 28, 1895. Department of Foreign Affairs, Honolulu, August 28, 1895. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 26th August informing me that Her Majesty's Government have had under their consideration, in communication with the law officers of the Crown, the proceedings of the Hawaiian Government against British subjects for complicity in the recent rising in cases where the persons in question have suffered arrest and detention under the powers conferred on the Executive by the proclamation of martial law without having been brought to trial and enclosing extracts from sworn statements made on the subject by: James Brown, Lewis J. Levey, M. C. Bailey, F. H. Redward. Thomas W. Rawlins, Arthur McDowall, F. Harrison, C. W. Ashford, G. Carson Kenvon and Edward B. Thomas, and informing me of the desire of Her Majesty's Government to be acquainted with the contention of the Hawaiian Government, as to the cause of the arrest in these instances and the reported vigorous treatment, and generally as to the rights and wrongs of the proceedings. I have the honor to inform you that the matter will receive the immediate attention of this Government, and a detailed statement in regard to the above-named cases will be made to you at the earliest practicable moment. In regard to James Brown, I desire to state to you, at this time, that I am informed by the Attorney-General, that this James Brown was born in Honolulu where he has resided all his life, excepting such time as he was in California in 1895, that his father, Edward Brown, was domiciled in this country where he carried on business to the time of his death: that James Brown has never lived in or visited any British territory, that he has accepted the privileges of Hawaiian citizenship by registering and voting as such. Under these circumstances, jurisdiction over him must be claimed by this Government. I beg to enquire if the above facts are admitted by Brown, or if evidence is desired upon them. At your request, a short time since I caused the records of naturalisation to be examined to ascertain if Jas. Brown's name appeared there. No record was found as I informed you. The fact of Hawaiian birth was not within the knowledge of this office at that time, and has since been ascertained by report from the AttorneyGeneral's Department. For your information and as throwing some light I the position which James Brown should be held to by him to this Department requesting permission to Occupy in this matter, I enclose a copy of letter addressed return to Hawaii and on which his return was allowed. I have, &c. FRANCIS M. HATCH. Sir. ANNEX 15. Mr. Hatch to Mr. Hawes. Department of Foreign Affairs, Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, November 4, 1895. IN further reply to your despatch of the 26th August ultimo, informing me of the desire of Her Majesty's Government to be made acquainted with the contention of the Hawaiian Government as to the cause of arrest and reported rigorous treatment of certain British subjects, and generally as to the rights and wrongs of the proceedings taken in connection therewith, I have the honour to lay before you the following affidavits : In the case of F. W. Harrison: Affidavit of E. G. In the case of E. B. Thomas: Affidavits of Captain In the case of Arthur McDowall: Affidavit of E. G. In the case of F. H. Redward: Affidavits of E. G. In the case of W. F. Reynolds: Affidavit of W. A. Kinney, with Exhibits (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F). In the case of T. W. Rawlins: Affidavits of E. G. Hitchcock, W. A. Kinney, and James A. Low. In the case of G. Carson Kenyon: Affidavits of E. G. Hitchcock, James A. Low, J. G. M. Sheldon, W. L. Wilcox, and W. A. Kinney. |