White, Arthur McDowall, A. Carriane, Fred. W. Wundenburg, Michael Cole Bailey, C. W. Ashford, C. Klemme, Harry von Werthern, John Radin, James Brown, A. P. Peterson, P. G. Camarinos and Nichols Peterson. These men were released about a week before their departure so as to give them an opportunity to put their business affairs in order. The first lot of eleven went to San Francisco on the steamer Australia, February 23, and the others followed during the next month, with the exception of one or two whose homes were in Australia.

Later in the year V. V. Ashford, Louis Marshal and W. H. C. Greig who had been sentenced by the military court were released from prison on condition that they leave the country. With the exception of these three together with C. W. Ashford, Cranstoun, Mueller and Johnstone, all those deported were granted leave to return to the country before the end of the

year.

CHAPTER VI.

PARDON OF PRISONERS.

It was hardly two months after the Military Commission held its final session when a movement was set on foot to influence the President and his advisers to exercise their prerogative and grant pardons to the political prisoners. The plea was first made by former royalist leaders and, in consequence of the apparent disposition of former enemies of the

Government to accept the political situation, received not a little support from many who had stood by the Republic from its inception. It was also argued that such a course would conciliate the native population, and create a more united people.

The quiet condition of the community lent force to the plea for clemency and on the Fourth of July, 1895, almost six months after the fight in which Charles Carter was killed, forty-five of the "rank and file" of the natives incarcerated in consequence of their connection with the rebellion, were granted conditional pardons. Each and every pardon contained the following provisions: "Such sentence is suspended, and the said ... may go at large, subject to remand upon

the order of the President."

On the same day the sentences of the leaders were commuted as follows: W. H. C. Greig, from twenty to fifteen years; T. B. Walker, thirty to fifteen years; Carl Widemann, thirty to fifteen years; Louis Marshall, twenty to fifteen years; W. H. Seward, thirty to twenty years; W. H. Rickard, thirty to twenty years; R. W. Wilcox, thirty to twenty years; and C. T. Gulick, thirty to twenty years.

In granting these pardons members of the Executive endeavored to impress upon those who had been released that upon their good behavior after obtaining their liberty depended the attitude of the Government toward the leaders of the revolt, who remained in prison.

It was not many weeks after this first act of clemency that the advocates of general pardon began to make themselves heard. The effect abroad, the strength of the Republic, its ability to maintain itself against all foes, and the conciliatory effect of such a move were the leading arguments presented. Those who opposed the general pardon held that such a move would be a practical admission that the insurrection itself, the "war" for its suppression, the lengthy continuance of martial law, the extended sessions of the military court with its extreme sentences were all in the nature of a farce and would place the officers of the Government as the leading lights in an opera bouffe.

In the face of arguments pro and con the Government held to its original policy of granting conditional pardons according as the peaceful condition of the country gave evidence. that political leaders had deserted the policy of attempting to gain their ends by force of arms. Accordingly on the 5th of September the President and Cabinet went before the Council of State with the recommendation that conditional pardons be granted ex-Queen Liliuokalani, Carl Widemann, Prince "Cupid" and forty-six others. The recommendation received the sanction of the Council of State, and on Friday, September 7th, the prisoners named were released. releasing the ex-Queen the Government made the extra condition that she reside at Washington Place and not change. her residence without permission from the Government; also

In

that she attend no political gatherings nor hold political meetings at her house. Some months later the Government gave the ex-Queen permission to reside anywhere on the Island of Oahu that suited her pleasure.

As Thanksgiving Day approached the friends of the remaining prisoners renewed their efforts to secure the release of the leaders who of all those sentenced by the Military Commission were the only ones remaining within the prison walls. Petitions for pardons signed by Hawaiians and foreigners were placed before the President and letters were received from the men in prison in which they admitted their connection with the rebellion, expressed regret for their political mistakes and signified their willingness to take the oath to the Republic, and be numbered among its supporters. The petitions with the recommendations of the Executive were placed before the Council of State and as a result, on the 28th of November W. H. Rickard, T. B. Walker, and five natives were released from prison upon the same conditions as previous pardons had been granted. There now remained in prison but eight of the men who took part, directly or otherwise, in the revolt. Among this number were R. W. Wilcox, C. T. Gulick, W. H. Seward and J. F. Bowler.

After having released men quite as seriously implicated in the revolt as those who remained in prison, the people of the country were unanimously in favor of the Government making a clean sweep and allowing all the prisoners to go

free. The Executive waited, however, until January 1, 1896, when the last prisoners, leaders and all, who had been sentenced by the Military Court were released from prison and allowed to go and come at their pleasure within the country, provided they kept free from political alliances made with a view to attempting the overthrow of the established Government.

This magnanimous policy of the Government toward its former enemies was generally applauded abroad and was received with more or less favor at home, although many of the staunch supporters of the Government believed it the final act of placing the stamp of farcial procedure upon the work of the Military Commission. As to the good or evil effects of the action of the Government upon the peculiar political conditions of Hawaii, time alone will demonstrate.

If void

of any other results, this action and the fact that it was sanctioned by a good proportion of the men who shouldered guns in support of the Government, shows with what readiness the people of Hawaii forget political differences even though those differences call for the defense of principle by resort to armed force.

CHAPTER VII.

DIPLOMATIC COMPLICATIONS.

Immediately the Military Court closed its sessions, the for

eigners who had been arrested during martial law began to lay plans for obtaining indemnity for what they considered unjust imprisonment. unjust imprisonment. Some of these men had been sentenced by the court but the larger proportion of claimants was among those who had accepted the option of leaving the country and still others who had been arrested during the early days of the revolt and detained in prison until the excited condition of the community had subsided.

The enemies of the Government were quite jubilant over the prospect for a time as it was believed that these claims would result in serious diplomatic complications and condemning the action of the Republic by foreign powers.

The first claims to be heard from by the Government were those of W. H. Rickard and T. B. Walker. These men, of British birth, gave affidavits that they had not become naturalized citizens of Hawaii notwithstanding they had exercised full rights of citizenship and held public office under the monarchy. This claim was regarded by Hawaiian officials as preposterous and upon searching the records it was found. that both Walker and Rickard had taken out Hawaiian letters of naturalization. These facts were placed before the British Government and early in August British Commissioner Hawes informed Minister Hatch that the British Government recognized the claim of the Republic as to the citizenship of Rickard and Walker, hence the British Government had no interest in them.

At the request of the British Commissioner his Government had been supplied with the evidence taken at the military trials. Early in August another request was made calling upon the Hawiian Government to set aside the verdict of the Military Court in the case of V. V. Ashford. The British Government admitted the validity of the court, also that the trials were conducted in an impartial manner. It was held, however, that Mr. Ashford had been convicted upon the evidence of an accomplice, hence the request. Hawaiian Government took the matter under advisement and up to July 1, 1896, it was still a subject for diplomatic correspondence.

The

Of those claiming the protection of the British Government who did not appear before the Military Court the following have presented claims that have been brought to the attention of the Hawaiian Government: C. W. Ashford, Fred Harrison, G. Carson Kenyon, Lewis J. Levey, A. McDowall, F. H. Redward, W. I. Reynolds, T. W. Rawlins, E. B. Thomas, M. C. Bailey, and Charles E. Dunwell. Of other nationalities, George Lycurgus and P. G. Camarinos, citizens of Greece, Edmund Norrie, a Dane, Manoel Gil dos Reis, Portuguese. James Durell and George L. Ritman, Jr., Americans, have lodged claims for indemnity. The demands of the Grecian

Government have been made through Great Britain.

The first case to be urged by the United States was that of James Durrell, an American negro who had been arrested

Sir:-I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of the affidavit of James Durrell, from which it appears Durrell was born in the State of Louisiana in 1858, and resided in the United States until September, 1894. He then came to this city and obtained temporary employment as a cook at the Arlington Hotel. On November 8, 1894, he purchased the lease and good-will of a cigar store, soda water and fruit stand, and gradually built up a lucrative business. On the 9th of January last, while quietly seated in his store, he was arrested without explanation or information of any charge against him, confined in jail on common prison fare until the 27th of February following, a period of seven weeks, and then discharged without any trial, charges, explanation or opportunity of defense; nor has he, since his release, been informed of the cause of his arrest.

He declares that he has never by word or deed forfeited his allegiance to or right of protection by his government; that he has neither done nor spoken anything directly or indirectly

against the Government of Hawaii or its laws; that he has never expressed sentiments antagonistic to that Government, or in any manner counselled, encouraged, aided or abetted its enemies, either in armed rebellion or secret plotting; and that he never possessed any information which under existing laws it was his duty to report to your Government.

These statements establish, in the opinion of the President of the United States, a prima facie claim for substantial indemnity from the Hawaiian Government to Mr. Durrell. I am instructed, therefore, to bring this case to the attention of the Hawaiian authorities, leaving no doubt in their minds. of the confidence felt in Washington "that the Government of Hawaii will not refuse to tender adequate reparation to this injured citizen of the United States, nor hesitate to take prompt measures to exonerate him from the imputation which this arbitrary treatment has left upon his good name.” With sentiments of high esteem,

I am, Sir, very respectfully,

ALBERT S. WILLIS, E. E. & M. P., U. S. A.

The general tenor of this letter, the demand being made before a statement from the Hawaiian Government had been obtained was regarded by the people at large as another evidence of President Cleveland's wholesome dislike for the Republic. The Government, however, took the matter under

advisement, made a thorough investigation in order to ascertain the strength of the "prima facie claim" and the case is still the subject of diplomatic correspondence. In fact the evidence taken by the Government in all the cases against those who lodged claims, has been forwarded to the respective governments that have taken up the cause of their injured citizens.

Further evidence of the apparently unfriendly attitude of the United States was found in the release of the schooner Wahlberg, by order of the Secretary of State. The Hawaiian Government held that the act of this American ship conveying the arms to Hawaii for the overthrow of the Republic, was in direct violation of neutrality laws. The American Government took no notice of the claim and released the captain and his ship from custody, notwithstanding the Hawaiian Government had sent an attorney and witnesses to San Diego to aid the prosecution of the case.

Great Britain has pursued a less abrupt course, except possibly in the claim that the verdict in the case of V. V. Ashford should be set aside. The correspondence in this case has not been made public although it is generally understood among the supporters of the Government that the executive officials of the country will not attempt to set aside the action of a court the validity of whose formation and subsequent action has been accepted by Great Britain and upheld by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Hawaii.