Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[ocr errors]

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 respectfully 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

my confidential friend. Numerous Hawaiians,

[ocr errors][merged small]


submit that it amounts, in effect, to my deportation from

wever, and

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

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 submissio in to the pretensions of the dominant faction, convinced that the prudent thing for me was to acce ment's offer of liberty, and withdraw tempo rarily.fro this stage of action, until the flames of hate and prejudi shall have time to subside. I protest; ho the country, against my will, and without process of la or any legal warrant; and I further protest and alles




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.

[ocr errors]

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. ]

Enclosure 10.

Extract from Statement of E. B. Thomas, sworn

April 8, 1895.

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."


Jlr. Hatch to Jr. Hauces, August 28, 1895.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Sir,

Honolulu, August 28, 1895. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your

upon the position which James Brown should be held to


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 Kenyon and Edward B. Thomas,
and informing me of the desire of Her Majesty's Govern
ment 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

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 Attorner-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 citizenshin bv registering and veting as such. Under these circum

stances, jurisdiction over him must be claimed by this 1

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 Attorney-
General's Department.
For your information and as throwing some light

by him to this Department requesting permission
return to Hawaii and on which his return was allowed.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]


Mr. Hatch to Mr. Haues.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Honolulu, Sir.

Hawaiian Islands Norember 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.

Hitchcock, with Exhibits (A), (B), (C), (D), (E);
affidavits of J. A. Low and W. A. Kinney, with

Exhibit (F).
In the case of E. B. Thomas: Afidavits of Captain

Kaai, J. L. Osmer. B. Fennermann, William
Hicky, Charles T. Day, William Davis, A. D.
McEvoy, Thomas Black, F. J. Macdonald, Peter
Higgins, M. Davis. E. G. Hitchcock, A. M. Brown,

and James A. Low.
In the case of Arthur McDowall : Affidavit of E. G.

Hitchcock, with Exhibits (A) (B), (C), (D); affidavit of W. A. Kinney, Thomas Black, James Donnelly, A. D. McEvoy, and W. H. Smith; and further affidavit of W. A. Kinney, with Exhibits

(A). (B), (C).
In the case of C. W. Ashford : Affidavit of E. G.

Hitchcock, with Exhibit (A); affidavit of James A.
Low, M. M. Scott, and W. A. Kinney, with

Exhibits (A), (B), (C), (D). (E). (F), (G).
In the case of F. H. Redward : Allidavits of E. G.

Hitchcock and W. A. Kinney, with Exhibits (A),
(B), (C), (D), (E); affidavit of Thomas Black,

Á. D. VICErov, and James Cartv.
In the case of W. F. Revnolds : Affidavit of W. A.

Kinney, with Exhibits (A), (B), (C). (D), (E). (F).

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »