The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1869-11-24
REPORTS AGAIN.

last issue, We were examining our reports
of certain meetings at Kaumakapili Church,
and comparing them with the reports pub
lished in the Pacific Co5a .7crcidI AdUeyfi-
SER which it is fair to "a puse, were au-
thorized by the President, Secretary, and
chief speakers, for the editor and proprie-
tor of that sheet claims, that he was the
parent OF the meeting, the author Of the
hand-bill summoning the meeting, the
phraseology of which was as expressive of
what he said bis meaning was, as his writ
ings usually are. 1t will be recollected
that he had reported the remarks of his
"Chief of stafflv by the single and graphic
word " eloquent" being probably entirely
dazzled and astonished and possibly DEEM
ing that word. but too small praise,-too
cold word. But in the succeeding num-
Der, (Oct. 3Oth,) they go into more DIFF
fuse account of the remarks Of their "elo-
Guent Junior, and to this report and the
remarks therein made, it is our intention
to advert now, comparing the same with
ours, in order TO ascertain, if possible,
where the garbling comes in. CHANGING
over our report Of Nov. Sd, and comparing
it with theirs, it seems to us that ours is
pretty full and circumstantial. We start
with stating that the speaker had with
drawn his valuable sympathy from the Plan
tiers, from one of whom, he said that he had
already withdrawn pecuniary assistance.
As the speaker did not tell the meeting
how great the amount was, or whether
the withdrawal had the effect to bring
down the topping edifice of that Planters
fortune, we could not report it. We then
proceeded to give the reason, as given by
the speaker himself, which had brought
such 4 disastrous misfortune on the said
planters, because he said, they had the sym
patty of the Ministers, Banker, and some
Merchants. In this, very nearly the same
words we're used, as those authorized by
the speaker in his own paper. We follow
this up by putting his platform before our
readers, in what appears to US to be the
same or very nearly the same words as
those used by himself, IN reporting him
self, viz: He was opposed to the system
of contract labor initiated and supported
by the Board of Immigration" 1t would
appear to most people, that any one who
had lived in this country during these last
twenty years, would have known that the
very law on which he was speaking was
not initiated" by the Board of lmmigra-
tion but was put upon the statute book
some thirteen years before the creation of
the Board. Not being willing to adopt
the expression infamous falsehood," "lie,"
etc, with which their columns are so freely
garnished, or the euphemistic expression
of their last issue they, to force point,
uttered statements which were proved to
be false, and left the impression that the
utterer knew them to be so,"-not being
used to this style, we simply characterized
this strange statement as 4 figure of rhet-
ORIG" Mr.. Carter then proceeded to state
that the business of getting laborers in
China " is identical with African slavery
" In China strife is engendered persons
are taken and sold to parties who are
getting laborers." The pen or bar
racoon is an institution in China as well
as in Africa" As faithful reporters
we were constrained, in reporting DR.. Hill
lebrand's remarks, to say that the Doctor
said, that "any one who pretended to COM
pare the manner in which the Chinese
were sent by him, from Hongkong, with
the Macao coolie trade, was a FOUL SLAM
DERER Mr.. G. was speaking of our labor
ers, and OF the system stated by him, not
QUITE accurately, to have been initiated
by the Board of Immigration" If his
remarks do not apply to ours, they were
of no value. Every one knows that these
things, if they took place at all, regarding
The Chinese now in this country, took
place in the British Colony of Hongkong.
Every one knows that they came here, not
IN crowded ships, but in British ships, in
with the British Emigration
Passenger Act. In reporting these re-
marks, we did not feel ourselves justified
n descending to their level and stating
hese things to be lies" or "they, to
orce point, uttered statements which
we're proved to be false, and left the i'm
PRESTON that the utterer knew them to be
TO-" but merely remarked it was another
figure of speech"
Again, we find that their paper, the p.
T. A., Oct. 23d, reports Mr.. Harris as having
repeatedly challenged any man to show,
n stand up and say, that he could produce
Coole who did not understand his con.
ract, He (Mr. H. had yet to see the
irst one who could not read it, and would
ay he had not signed it." This is sufi-
iently remote from what Mr.. Harris did
ay, and we reported him much more ac-
urately. But on Oct Both, the same
aper reports the same remark thus
Repeatedly challenged any man to show