CO885-(13-15) — Page 423

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

6

Reference :-

PLLC.O. 885

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

4

satisfaction and redress in the Courts of the Republic, to which British subjects are entitled,

The eight cases reported in Mr. Hawes' despatch No. 14 of the 7th March (Paper F), viz., those of James Brown, Lewis J. Levey, C. Bailey, F. H. Redward, M. C. Bailey, T. W. Rawlins, A. McDowall, F. Harrison, are, as has been already observed, of similar character, and are in each case supported by depositions sworn before the British Vice-Consul.

Special attention may be called to the case of James Brown, whose statements as to the nature of the treatment he received in prison, and to the methods adopted by the Judge Advocate of the Military Commission to obtain evidence from him, are instructive, and corroborate the similar statements made by Dunwell.

The case of Lewis Levey is noticeable for the length of his detention-thirty-seven days-for his formal protest that the agreement which he signed to obtain his release was made after repeated pressure and under "restraint": for his claim of 50,000 dollars compensation in view of his loss of occupation and damage to his business as an auctioneer and general merchant of thirteen years' standing in Honolulu, by his being forced to agree to leave the country at an age (58) when he cannot hope to establish himself in business with success in a new country.

The case of C. Bailey is similar, and his arrest appears to be connected with that of Levey, whom it was sought to induce, through his means, to leave the country. He signed the agreement at length, after having previously refused to do so in the presence of Mr. Hawes, at the argent instance of his wife. compensation.

He makes no claim for The case of F. H. Redward, the reason of whose arrest was, he was informed, conspiracy," is noticeable for his declaration to the Hawaiian Marshal that he was " for ready to stand his trial, and would not sign the agreement to leave the country, which he afterwards signed on receiving the assurance that he would probably be able to return in a short time,

He states that, in order to leave Hawaii, he has had to sell his property at a heavy loss,

He was detained in prison from the 7th January to the 12th February,

In the case of M. C. Bailey, the complainant was detained in prison some three weeks, and finally signed an agreement" under duress, and to get relieved from a hopeless Tribunal.”

It will be seen from the later despatch from Mr. Hawes, No. 19 of the 4th of April (Paper K), that Mr. M. C. Bailey has since made a further sworn statement in respect case, which shows the arbitrary methods adopted by the Marshal of the Republic in dealing with him.

to his

He was, it now appears, detained to suit the convenience of the Government, after accepting their terms of release, and engaging is passage, until Mr. Levey also agreed to go, and was then compelled to leave the country, the Government, however, declining to pay his passage.

He had entered into an engagement, prior to his arrest on the 12th February, to work as a collector and outside agent at a salary of 100 dollars a-month for five years, dating from the 1st March, 1895, with a half share of the profits on all the business he brought to the firm.

This agreement

was cancelled in consequence of his arrest, and he claims 25,000 dollars damages for loss thereby.

Thomas W. Rawlins, a resident in Honolulu of twenty years' standing, was arrested on the 8th January, and detained in prison for four weeks till the 5th of February. He was informed by the authorities that he was +6 Government had the necessary evidence required to hang him, and he was therefre arrested for conspiracy," that the advised to accept the offer of leaving the country without being tried by court- martial,

On the latter date he was released by "order of the Cabinet, on his own recognizances to appear when called upon," but he states that he was, even at the date of his declaration (4th March), "still practically under arrest, being unable to leave the city."

He states that it was his intention to leave the country for California on important private business carly in January, but that owing to his arrest his business plans have been entirely upset, that he has suffered heavy pecuniary loss, that he has undergone severe mental strain and worry, and that he has sustained permanent injury to his health.

and

5

He wishes to know "whether he can be guaranteed that quiet possession of life property which he has hitherto enjoyel, and to which he is entitled, and whether, as a British subject, he can obtain any redress for the insult and injury which he and his family have suffered at the hands of the Hawaiian Republic."

No specific damages are, however, claimed,

Arthur McDowell was arrested on the 7th January and detained until the 15th February, when he was practically deporte. He was subjected to repeated pressure to induce him to leave the country, and at length, as the result of bad food and confinement in a dark cell, and much harsh treatment in prison, consented to do so on the 23rd of that month. He was unable to obtain any information, in reply to his repeated inquiries, as to the charge upon which he was detained.

His sworn statement is most clear and categorical that " he had nothing whatever to do with the rebellion in any form or shape, had no arms or ammunition, nor did he assist anyone in getting arms or ammunition, nor had he any knowledge of arms or ammunition being brought to the country for revolutionary purposes, knowledge there was to be a revolution, nor even any reason to suspect the same."

No claim for compensation is put forward.

nor any

Mr. Frederick Harrison, arrested on the 9th January, and detained till the 23rd February, was informed on inquiry that "there was no charge made against him." Repeated overtures were made to him to leave the country, and he was told by an Agent of the Government that they had evidence against him, and would no doubt confiscate all his property."

•

The form of agreement which he was at length induced to sign was, so far as he can recollect, to the following effect:-

"I, Frederick Harrison, having been detained in Oahu prison for complicity in the insurrection against the Hawaiian Government, agree to leave the country on the steamer Mioweru about the 4th March, during my lifetime never to return unless by permission of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and approved by the Marshal."

He states that, as it seemed probable after five weeks imprisonment that he would be detained indefinitely or brought before a Military Tribunal before which he had no chance of a fair trial, he consented, " under pressure and intimidation," to accept the terms offered for his release.

He further states that he had resided seventeen years in Hawaii, and had an established business which he had had to sacrifice with other property, and contracts which were in progress at the time of his arrest. This, he says has proved a severe loss to himself and his family.

date.

The next case reported by Mr. Hawes is in some respects the most important, and that supported by the fullest details, viz., that of C. W. Ashford, brother of V. V. Ashford, whose trial is referred to in my other letter, marked (A), of to-day's C. W. Ashford is himself a lawyer, and has drawn up his own statement of his case, which is inclosed in Mr. Hawes" despatch No. 16 of the 7th March (Paper G).

The statement declares that he and his brother were in no way concerned in the Royalist rising, but that they had been watched by Government spies ever since 1893, their only offence being that they had ventured to criticize the new Administration.

Mr. C. W. Ashford was, it appears, arrested and imprisoned on the 8th January, and kept in confinement until the 23rd February, when under duress he accepted a proposition of the Hawaiian Government for his release on condition that he should leave the country,"

11

His statement enters at considerable length into the question of the jurisdiction of the Military Commission, and its competency to try cases of misprision of treason. The arguments on this head will, however, have doubtless already been considered in connection with the case of V. V. Ashford, to which they are more directly applicable, as C. W. Ashford was not himself brought to trial.

Mr. Ashford complains that his private correspondence was intercepted and read while he was in prison: that while there he wis subjected to solitary confinement: and he concludes by appealing to Her Majesty's Government to obtain compensation from the Hawaiian Government for the pecuniary and other injury which he has sustained at their hands. He further states that since his release he has again been watched by Government spies,