The Hawaiian gazette., 1869-05-26

most unhesitatingly say, that Mr.. Hender-
son had never heard of any intention, on
the part OF this Government, to offer any
contract to run inter-island steamers, be-
fore starting from San Francisco.
May 18th. it is written:
"After SEVERAL conferences with the Min
I isiry, or perhaps the Minisi, II Interior, no
arrangement could be agreed on"
And on May 22nd:
"That he had ONE conference and would
have had MORE, II the Ministers had signifed
desire 10 have them, or Offered any induce
ment"
There was certainly no reason why
Ministers" or anybody else, should de-
sire more conferences, when they had both
given and received all the information that
could be impaired. But the idea in the
first publication is, that several conferences
had been had, with an effort, on the part of
Mr.. Henderson, to come to an arrange
ment" in order to secure the privilege"
.
which several conferences, in the next
issue, dwindle into one interview, in which
no arrangement was proposed, but merely
information sought And further, on this
subject of the interyiews,-which,i in his
Issue of May 18th, had been several-on
May 22nd. We have from the same source:
"He CMr. Henderson, went to the Gov
ernment-House 10 see the Ministers relative
TO the project Not finding them in, rela-
tive of his met Mr.. Harris on Tuesday,
and inquired when Mr.. Henderson might
have an interview with him on steam.
The Minister appointed certain hour the
next day, (Wedncsday,) al which time he
found two of them in, and had the desired
interview. Again he called on the Thursday
following, and obtained q copy OF the laws.
This makes three times that he called, and if
the Ministers did not see him but ONCE, as
stated, it was probably because they were SO
taken up with private business speculations
as TO be unable 10 attend 10 official duties"
He called once,-not finding the
person called on,-got an appointment,
which was duly kept, and subsequently
he called on the Chief Clerk of an Office,
to get copy of the laws, (which he got
and, therefore, the statement is published
that he had several interviews, in which no
arrangement could be agreed upon-not
because he did have several interviews, or
sought more than one,-but because if
Ministers had signifed a desire to have
more, more might have been had.
Again. On May 18th, it is SAID:
Mr.. Henderson, as we understood him,
was READY TO CONTRACT to do the service,
for five or more years, for the subsidy voted
by the Legislature"
But again, on May 22nd;
"Mr. Henderson could not, of course,
make any BINDING OBLIGATION without
the consent OF his partners, even had the
Ministers suggested such course"
The strength of this legal proposition,
that one partner can not bind his CO.
partners, in contract, in the course of
their business, without their express con-
sent, we have nothing to do with. The
contrast of the two statements is what we
have to put before our readers. First, he
was ready to contract, and then he could
not, OF COURSE, make any binding obliga-
ton. Now, if he could not make any
binding obligation, how could he be ready
to contract?
He was not told lnoOnditioRdly that if
he should furnish a staunch, sea-worthy yes
sci, which would do the service as provided,
he could have the contract: but he was told
that if other parties trere accepted before he
arrived, he might have it. That makes q very
important difference in an enterprise involv-
ing an outlay of from fifty to one hundred
thousand dollars; and no wise merchant
would send steamer, ai5lGer those circlnl-
stances '-R c. 4dr., May 22nd.
He was not told =" that if no other
parties were accepted before he arrived, he
should have it" (the contract); but he was
told, that if no other parties were accepted
before a LETTER should arrive from his
Firm, proposing that they would furnish
staunch, sea-worthy vessels, which would
perform the service as called for by the
law, he should have the contract.