The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1868-11-07
THE PACIFIC
Commercial Advertiser.
NOVEMBER :

appeared in this PAPER and also the Ga-eIe two
weeks since. and which has evidently disturbed
the nerves OF the custoiians Of the Official organ,
demands notice. The first feeling Of every friend
Of the Reciprocity Treaty, on reading the letter,
has doubles been one of keen regret If not Of
outzPoken Indignation, that any person occupy
Ing an important and influential position among
Is, should have used his influence to defeat what
nine-tenths Of the foreign population here believe
10 be a measure OF great benefit TO every class
and TO every industry in this group. And more
especially that that influence should be thrown
against it just NJ n time when it proved most dam
ging To the treaty, and probably settled is fate.
On n careful re-perusal of the document, every
reader las doubtless asked himself two questions:
First, If the writer was opposed - the treaty,
had he not the same right TO oppose its ratifca-
ton as I, It's friend, had TO favor it? And Sec
ODdly, are the statements made by him corrobo-
rated by actz; and if 50, had he not n right to
express them as lie did, If requested to do so?
The document i carefully drawn up. and we
are informed that il was prepared only for private
use. never intended for publication. that it was
obtained without tie consent aud published
against the remOnstrance of its author. Under
sueh circumstances, however notifying it may
be for a writer TO appear in print, no man can be
held responsible for what he may say, nor cen
suTei i to any greater extent than had he used the
language in private. When il went into print,
Of without his knowledge, as we are informed,)
it was like stolen property, taken and appro-
pTiated without tie authors consent. For a
government officer of the highest rank to take a
private letter and use il under such c~ircumStan-
ecs, abusing its author az has been done in this
case, shows TO use the mildest expression) a
want Of courtesy, refinement and good breeding,
which, however much to be regretted, is charac-
teTistic OF our public men.
That the document contains more truth than
fiction il clearly evidenced by the restlessness and
uneasiness Of the gentlemen who have volunteer
ed TO be it, critics. Its original publication was
no doubt injudieiJus, not because it contains any
false statements, bat because of It's effect on the
pending treaty. Ii Is not always wise TO publish
facts, when such publication will produce more
injury than good, or will defeat a measure Of
universal benefit to the PEOPLE. as in this case.
The letter, therefore, having been written only
for pirate use, and having been surrPtiiiousiy
odfaiHed and published. We consider that j; Is nota
legitimate object for public criticism and there
fore our remarks will be confined 70 the Govern
ment organ.
The writer in the GqseDs says, 81 We have not
minated 4 suspicion Of the authorship, and
therefore have not begun, continued or ended
with any personalities whatever" In the issue
OF the previous week, this came writer had the
following:
-sarrly the writer Of the Ie,ier could not have been present
AZ the e~iebrstioa d the 4h u July, lsG5, 81 which time, he
q saihG.=sn and high sNpectAion.' sDd heard the oatfan Of
the Rev RI CoTEiu. Eho, b. = singular epinci5eEoe. had been
ia tns culatE -ElGtly the same Ar.th Of time which tie zt-
81 aver. h-nls-h u have been, aud who AksHiss occupied an
Now ii this i not : in.inating'' who the au-
thor il. then language cannot do it. Perhaps, if
we should ray that the critic in the Gazette may
or may not be the late envoy extraordinary to
Washington end should st0ud, declare that
" We have not intimated n suspicion of the author
ship our denial might pass for what it was
worth, but it would be quite as credible as that
Of the organ, which has fixed = : suspicion of the
authorship of the Washington letter. Conse-
quently it has INDUCED in personalities.
To malign individuals, to heap personal abuse
on its opponents is a leading trait Of the govern
ment organ, rs though that was the prime object
for which it was established. To denOunce men
as c1nspirators and traitors vino dare to differ in
politics from them is the unenyiable character
which our leading government officials possess.
While protesting the largest liberty of speech for
all, they denOunce a man as unfit 10 be tolerated
IN the community who utters sentiments at vari-
ance with their own.
The writer in the Gazette refers to the subject
of suppressing free discussion, es though he
might have been absent from the country during
the last session of the Legislature. If 80, n pc
rusal Of the files of the Advertiser 1.-THE Gazette
omitted the details) may set him right, and show
him that the ministers and their sycophants did
make an attempt to "supPress free discussion
and did attempt to muyzlc this paper because its
publisher permitted the insertion of articles favor
ing annexation TO the United Statcs-because
this paper did then just What the official organ
did two weeks since, allow one of the advocates
of that measure to speak his mind freely. The
ministers learned one thing in June lhst-that
the suppression of free discussion should only be
undertaken when they arc prepared to leave
office. Ii is To this attempt and the threats
which preceded il, that the Washington letter re-
fers, and though it's language is stronger than
warranted, We all know it was based on facts, to
deny which is uttering a falsehood.
We have not space to refer to all the points
raised by the Gazette critic, but will refer to the
Neutrality Proclamation. That proclamation
placed the Rebels on the same footing as the
American Government, and Consequently lowered
the latter to the level of the insurgents. IF this
was not treating the American Government with
disrespect, what could be? But the language of
tic proclamation, offensive as it was to Ameri-
cans, was not the chief error. This Government
made a mistake in issuing the proclamation at
all. When the Ga=ene writer states it was :. APP
proved before Its publication, by the Representa-
tives Of the United States Government here we
think he Is mistaken, and we are confident that
DIR. McBrydc demonstrated verbally with Mr..
Wyllie against its issuance, although he acknowl-
edged its receipt and forwarded it to Washing
ton, rs in duty bound. lie considered it. as
did everybody else, an act Of uncllled-for interfer-