The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1868-05-20
SUBSIDY.
We commend to our readers the sound
of the following letter from one
Of our prominent business men:

! al uiHehtS vi inc iOilOWiuS leller lFOul one
of our prominent business men:
HONOLULU, May 10, 1868
To THE EDITOR OF THE HAWAIIAN GAZETTE:
SIR:-The importance of the question of
| the proposed subsidy to the California, Ore
gon and Mexico Steamship Company, must
be my apology for opening again this subject.
The opposers of it brought up their battery
in last weeks Commercial Advertiser, many of
the shots We're we'll directed, whilst from
one gun not only did they come thick and
fast, but the supply of ammunition seemed
| inexhaustible. 1t might seem hopeless
task where so many propositions are ad-
vanced us in the letter Of ii. A. p. c., some of
them being rather startling ones, and involy-
ing the principles of political economy, and
| commercial legislation well as commercial
detail, to expect to discuss them intelligent
~ within reasonable limits. A little CLASH
fication, however, may assist US in dealing
with them, and perhaps enable us to appre-
ciate their bearing on the question before us.
The motives and actions of the ministers Or
the ministry, the insinuations about impro-
per influences | need not refer to. | pro-
pose now TO dicuss measures not men,
The axiom laid down by II. A P. c. "that
| political dependency will follow the COM
mercial dependency of this country" hardly
requires serious argument. All that COM
mercial dependency means or can mean in
| our case is, that we shall do most of our
trade, by exchanging our products with San
Francisco, rather than Boston. What harm
can accrue to this country, politically or
commercially. He admits this result is
natural aud inevitable" and in the regular
course of trade, but objects to our paying to
hasten it. lift is natural and inevitable and
he might have added, profitable and good,
why should We not? Its only too evident that
in all this argument of commercial Deepen
dency and political dependency" II. A. P. c.
/ is merely pointing to danger, or rather
holding up a bugbear, which does not alarm
him, but which he hopes may have the effect
of frightening some of our Legislators who
might otherwise be favorable to the subsidy.
| Such arguments as that it was derogatory
to the dignity of this government to subsi
die vessels not under lis o,c1, tidg, may be
| safely left to the common sense of the Legis-
lature.
There are several points however in the let
ter of II. A. P. c. which require more careful
reply. The one which occurs to us as the
most important is in effect this: ''If this
company intend to run two steamers at loss
for two years, are they not probably going to
/ make il up afterwards, by exorbitant rates,
or by demanding higher subsidy, or both ~
| think we may assume that they would do
so, if they could But would ask what are
their chances? what is the possibility of their
raising the rate of freight or passage for any
considerable time, at the end of two years,
above what the planters and merchants make
up their minds is a fair thing to pay? Is it
not evident that We should have line of
sailing packets, on i'll few months at farth-
/ est, and We should never trust the steam
! company again. If they ask for a higher
4 subsidy that is no reason why they should
get it, unless indeed the public found the
1 benefits from two years experience so great
that they could be willing TO pay more. If
then this company have calculated upon max
| ing up their losses for two years, by subse-
quent monopoly and extortion, they have
merely oyerreached themselves. 1t is posi-
bic, however, that they may have reckOned
upon the increase of freight and passengers
at the end of two years, enabling them to do
without the subsidy at all-and the calcutta
ton would not be an unreasonable Cne-it
only requires an increase of ten passengers
and fiitN,tons of freight per trip both ways
to make up the whole S25, 900 wanted. How
much will the completion of the Pacific Rail-
way help them out? If the calculation
prove wrong one, the loss is theirs not
ours. In fine, we are on the right side of the
hedge, we have the best of the bargain, and
the sooner we close II the better. good
deal has been said about guarantees, and ii
is limited this company would not stick to
their bargain if they found il did not suit
them. Well, what guarantees have we now
They can withdraw at any moment BY an
arrangement with the American Govern
ment But BY taking our So, 600 they bind
themselves to US, while now We have not
word to say. II really seems to me fortunate
for us that this company did not get the
500, 900 they first asked and run their bouts
once month, for, as the matter now stands,
we are in position TO get better accommo-
datiOn, to limit the freight to- six dollars per
4 .I.Is. a..
fore they can withdraw. On the very worst
supposition of fragrant breach of contract,
We lose nothing, for it is only proposed TO
pay for what We get, say at the end of GER I
tain term. But after all the reasonable chan |
ces are that having gone so far, having got one !
boat running and another ready, that with a |
subsidy from this Government and contract |
with it, the company would run the boats /
regularly, even at a considerable loss for two |
years, in the hope of greatly improved traf- /
fc at last AS the matter stands now, run
ming once in 80 days only, II can neither be /
satisfactory to the company nor to the public. /
We are truly reminded by II. A. p. c. and /
others, that the question is narrowed down /
to one Of eighteen trips year instead of 1
ten, or, that it is between having steamer |
every thirty-iive days supplemented by /
large number of sailing vessels, and steam
er every twenty or tWenty-one days supple /
mented by much smaller number of sailing /
vessels 1t Is further observed, that on this /
account and from the way we do our bust
ness drawing against shipments) that the
calculations of saving in interest that have
been made are reduced down TO a small
figure 1t may be worth while to follow
this M little. Let Us take the case of the
planters contract with the Refinery Compa-
ny. 1t was agreed to, take payment for the
sugars in bills at ninety days date, because
they would have bad to sell on sixty days
credit In San Francisco anyhow-aDG the
Refneries could not calculate on receiving
our sugars in San Francisco In less than
thirty days. Had we had steamer running
every twenty days when the planters made
that contract, they would ouly nave had to
allow TO the Refinery fifteen days as the out
side time for the passage over, and would
have got seyenty-iye day bills for their su-
gars, worth half per cent more cash in Ho-
nolulu than ninety day bills The planters
might have saved 3, 30 clear cash on this
one sale Of 10000, 000 lbs. of sugar. A
steamer every thirty-iye days would have
left them no better of than they were With
out any steamer at all, for they would lose
just the fifteen DAYS interest, by having to
wait thirty-five days instead OF twenty for
the next steamer. 1t would be no adyen-
tage, il will be observed, to ship by an in
termcdiate sailing vessel, however many
there might be, as the Refinery would IN
that case have to give the ninety day bill
again. The consideration of this case sbows
US In practical manner-how a regular fire.
auent and rapid communication with San
Francisco saves us interest or makes US dol