In truth, the monarchy here is an absurd anachronism.  It has nothing on which it logically or legitimately stands.  The feudal basis on which it once stood no longer existing, the monarchy now is only an impediment to good government—­an obstruction to the prosperity and progress of the islands.

He further says: 

As a Crown colony of Great Britain or a Territory of the United States the government modifications could be made readily and good administration of the law secured.  Destiny and the vast future interests of the United States in the Pacific clearly indicate who at no distant day must be responsible for the government of these islands.  Under a Territorial government they could be as easily governed as any of the existing Territories of the United States. * * * Hawaii has reached the parting of the ways.  She must now take the road which leads to Asia, or the other, which outlets her in America, gives her an American civilization, and binds her to the care of American destiny.

He also declares: 

One of two courses seems to me absolutely necessary to be followed—­either bold and vigorous measures for annexation or a “customs union,” an ocean cable from the Californian coast to Honolulu, Pearl Harbor perpetually ceded to the United States, with an implied but not expressly stipulated American protectorate over the islands.  I believe the former to be the better, that which will prove much the more advantageous to the islands and the cheapest and least embarrassing in the end to the United States.  If it was wise for the United States, through Secretary Marcy, thirty-eight years ago, to offer to expend $100,000 to secure a treaty of annexation, it certainly can not be chimerical or unwise to expend $100,000 to secure annexation in the near future.  To-day the United States has five times the wealth she possessed in 1854, and the reasons now existing for annexation are much stronger than they were then.  I can not refrain from expressing the opinion with emphasis that the golden hour is near at hand.

These declarations certainly show a disposition and condition of mind which may be usefully recalled when interpreting the significance of the minister’s conceded acts or when considering the probabilities of such conduct on his part as may not be admitted.

In this view it seems proper to also quote from a letter written by the minister to the Secretary of State on the 8th day of March, 1892, nearly a year prior to the first step taken toward annexation.  After stating the possibility that the existing Government of Hawaii might be overturned by an orderly and peaceful revolution, Minister Stevens writes as follows: