of the sentence or indicate or declare their intention to so execute sentence, you will demand custody of prisoners, that they may be placed on board the Philadelphia pending further instructions from the President. You will deliver copy of this telegram to commander of that ship, who, if necessary, is expected to support demand.” Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Willis, min. to Hawaii, tel., Feb. 26, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 843. "With reference to your telegram of the 17th instant, touching the imprisonment or condemnation of numerous persons in connection with the recent disturbance in Hawaii, I observe your statement that 13 American citizens are still in prison without charges and without trial. This Government has no disposition to be exacting with that of Hawaii, especially under present circumstances, but it owes a duty to its citizens to see to it that they are not wantonly subjected to arbitrary treatment. Though martial law has been proclaimed, it does not follow that aliens innocent of participation in the acts which gave rise to its proclamation may be arrested and indefinitely imprisoned without charges and without trial. The existence of martial law, while it may imply the suspension of the methods and guaranties by which justice is ordinarily secured, does not imply a suspension of justice itself. You are instructed to insist to the Hawaiian Government that the American citizens still imprisoned without charges and without trial shall be promptly tried or promptly released." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Willis, min. to Hawaii, tel., Feb. 25, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 842. "I enclose herewith copies of certain depositions. . . . These depositions leave the question of Mr. Cranstoun's nationality in doubt.... Under these circumstances the Department does not now instruct you to make any representations to the Hawaiian Government .., but it is proper to express to you, for your own guidance in similar cases, should they arise, the views here entertained in regard to the course of action taken in that case. "It appears that after having been kept in jail for nearly a month, without any charges having been made against him, he was taken under a heavy guard to a steamer, and would, in spite of his request to see you, have been deported without having had an opportunity then to do so had it not been for the accidental, but timely, interposition of the British commissioner. "You state that when you asked the attorney-general for an explanation of the proceeding, he replied that the cabinet had determined to deport the men in the exercise of the arbitrary power conferred by martial law.' As this was the only explanation he gave, it is assumed that it was all he had to offer, and he gave it without suggestion of any question as to Mr. Cranstoun's nationality. "If the position thus assumed be sound, the very proclamation of martial law in Hawaii renders all foreigners there residing, including Americans, liable to arrest and deportation without cause and without any reason other than the fact that the executive power wills it. They may be taken from their homes and their business; they may be deprived of their liberty and banished; they may be denied the ordinary as well as the special treaty rights of residence without offense or misconduct on their part, simply in the exercise of arbitrary power.' "To state such a proposition is, in the opinion of the President, to refute it. Truly viewed,' says an eminent author, martial law can only change the administration of the laws, give them a rapid force and make their penalties certain and effectual-not abrogate what was the justice of the community before. The civil courts are in part or fully suspended; but, in reason, the new summary tribunals should govern themselves in their proceedings, as far as circumstances admit, by established principles of justice, the same which had before been recognized in the courts.' (Bishop's Criminal Law, sec. 45.) "In view of what has been stated, your course in protesting against the position assumed by the attorney-general of Hawaii is approved." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Willis, min. to Hawaii, Feb. 25, 1895, Cranstoun subsequently addressed a letter to the United States commer- Complaints having been made against the Hawaiian Government by persons claiming American citizenship, the minister of the United States at Honolulu was instructed to ascertain whether they had by permanent residence in Hawaii, the acquisition of its citizenship, or participation in its political affairs, abandoned or lost their right to American protection. "The case of James Dureell is not embarrassed by any such preliminary question. I herewith inclose a copy of his affidavit received here with your dispatch, No. 100, of April 11 last, from which it appears that Dureell was born in the State of Louisiana in 1858, and resided in the United States until September 14, 1894. He then went to Honolulu and obtained temporary employment as a cook at the Arlington Hotel, in that city. On November 8, 1894, he purchased the lease and good will of a cigar store and 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 followinga 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 and his right to protection by this 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 counseled, 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 that Government. ་་ These statements establish, in the opinion of the President, a prima facie claim for substantial indemnity from the Hawaiian Government to Mr. Dureell. You will bring the case to the attention of the Hawaiian authorities, leaving no doubt in their minds of the confidence here felt 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." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Willis, min. to Hawail, June 12, 1895, In another instruction to Mr. Willis, on the same day, id. 860, Mr. Olney "I have to enjoin upon you the duty of satisfying yourself that this person had not taken the oath of allegiance to the Hawaiian Government prior to his arrest, and that the statements of his affidavit as to his arrest and imprisonment are true. His arrival in Honolulu subsequent to the proclamation of the present Government and to the last elections held there, and the brevity of his stay, exclude any unfavorable presumption that he may have, by some voluntary act, renounced his right to protection as an American citizen; and, in the light of his positive declarations that by no act of omission or commission he has impaired his status as a citizen of the United States or violated any obligation to the Republic of Hawaii, his case seems to be especially meritorious. 66 When you shall have become satisfied upon the points above indicated, you will present the case to the Hawaiian authorities as instructed.” March 2, 1895, the Hawaiian Government stated that no persons charged with complicity in the insurrection were then held in custody except such as had been tried. The following persons, who claimed to be American citizens, had been released: J. Ross, James Dureel, George Lycurgus, W. F. Reynolds, J. Mitchell, A. P. Peterson, Chas. Creighton, Edward France, H. A. Juen, P. M. Rooney, Geo. Ritman, H. von Werthern, and Arthur White. Of these, the first five (Ross, Dureel, Lycurgus, Reynolds, and Mitchell) were unconditionally discharged no accusation having been brought against them. The rest were allowed to leave, but were not to return without permission. (For. Rel. 1895, II. 850.) As to the sentences of Maj. W. H. Seward, Chas. T. Gulick, Lewis Marshall, Col. V. V. Ashford, and Mr. Greig (a British subject), see For. Rel. 1895, II. 854, 861, 862, 863. Jan. 1, 1896, all the remaining political prisoners were released on parole. (For. Rel. 1895, II. 867.) "Early in January last an uprising against the Government of Hawaii was promptly suppressed. Martial law was forthwith proclaimed and numerous arrests were made of persons suspected of being in sympathy with the Royalist party. Among these were several citizens of the United States, who were either convicted by a military' court and sentenced to death, imprisonment, or fine, or were deported without trial. The United States, while denying protection to such as had taken the Hawaiian oath of allegiance, insisted that martial law, though altering the forms of justice, could not supersede justice itself, and demanded stay of execution until the proceedings had been submitted to this Government and knowledge obtained therefrom that our citizens had received fair trial. The death sentences were subsequently commuted or were remitted on condition of leaving the islands." President Cleveland, Annual Message, Dec. 2, 1895. (For. Rel. 1895, Case of Waller. "The customary cordial relations between this country and France have been undisturbed, with the exception that a full explanation of the treatment of John L. Waller by the expeditionary military authorities of France still remains to be given. Mr. Waller, formerly United States consul at Tamatave, remained in Madagascar after his term of office expired, and was apparently successful in procuring business concessions from the Hovas of greater or less value. After the occupation of Tamatave and the declaration of martial law by the French, he was arrested upon various charges, among them that of communicating military information to the enemies of France, was tried and convicted by a military tribunal, and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. 'Following the course justified by abundant precedents, this Government requested from that of France the record of the proceedings of the French tribunal which resulted in Mr. Waller's condemnation. This request has been complied with to the extent of supplying a copy of the official record, from which appear the constitution and organization of the court, the charges as formulated, and the general course and result of the trial, and by which it is shown that the accused was tried in open court and was defended by counsel. But the evidence adduced in support of the charges-which was not received by the French minister for foreign affairs till the first week in October-has thus far been withheld, the French Government taking the ground that its production in response to our demand would establish a bad precedent. The efforts of our ambassador to procure it, however, though impeded, by recent changes in the French ministry, have not been relaxed, and it is confidently expected that some satisfactory solution of the matter will shortly be reached. Meanwhile it appears that Mr. Waller's confinement has every alleviation which the state of his health and all the other circumstances of the case demand or permit." President Cleveland, Annual Message, Dec. 2, 1895. For. Rel. 1895, I. xxiii. John L. Waller, to whom the foregoing passage refers, was consul at Tamatave from February, 1891, till January, 1894. Subsequently, in the latter year, he was sued before his successor for negligence and mismanagement of the estate of an American citizen, which he had administered upon as consul, and a judgment was rendered against him. Waller was detained in connection with this judgment when, in December, 1894, the French bombarded Tamatave, captured it, installed a garrison, proclaimed martial law, and put the mails under surveillance. March 5, 1895, Waller was arrested by the French authorities and his papers were seized. He was subjected to the usual preliminary examinations, and on March 18, 1895, was brought to trial before a military tribunal on charges (1) of dispatching a letter from Tamatave without having had it viséed by the French authorities, in violation of a public order of January 18, 1895, and (2) of attempting to correspond with the enemies of France and to furnish them information prejudicial to the military and political situation of France. He was convicted and sentenced by the unanimous vote of the court on both charges, and an appeal taken to a council of revision was rejected March 23, 1895. As stated above, the evidence when received at Paris was at first withheld. Subsequently, however, the French Government, without admitting any duty to permit an inspection of it—a duty which that Government claimed from the outset did not exist-submitted the evidence to Mr. Eustis, United States ambassador at Paris, for such |