The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1870-02-26

-
1t is quite unnecessary that We should make
any lengthy reply to the three columns of edito-
rial slang in the last issue of the Government
organ but it seems incumbent no US to notice, as
briefly as possible, two or three points in it.
1.-The statement that Mr.. Randolph has di-
rected no communication to the ADVERTISER is
false. We have several times during the past
fifteen years received items of interesting intelli-
gence from him and other residents on the groups
visited by the missionary packet and oil traders,
and sent them files of this paper.
1.-The assertion that any one connected with
the Hawaiian Board has requested US TO publish a
letter relating to the conduct of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs in the Mahoe matter, as also false.
\ gentleman did call on us and showed us a
manuscript, but made no request to have it pub
lished, or it would have appeared in our last
issue.
Safeguarding the case of the young man on
the Kaneohe Plantation-we ask the same Minis
ter to state distinctly and without prevarication,
if a person employed on that plantation was not
discharged for voting for Mr.. Cummings, ard in a
few days thereafter re-instated?
In the whalebone case, the testimony Of
NakOokoo uoas set aside as unworthy Of credence,
by the Magistrate, though the Crown Attorney
declared him to be ga perfectly reliable Witness"
and all the circumstances and testimony strongly
corroborated it while in the larceny case tried
last week a foreigner was found guilty by the
same Magistrate on less conclusive evidence, the
witnesses in both cases being Hawaiians.
5.-Respecting the Japanese who were taken
we assert, on the authority of several gen.
tlemen who conversed with them at the time of
their being taken from the plantations and other
places, that some of them declared they left SER
rice inUohuntarily. After all their arrangements
for leaving had been perfected, and they were on
board the ship ready to sail, doubtless they would
all say they were glad they were going home.
Now these points which we have instanced may
to many readers appear trifiing; but when we
take into consideration that the Gazette is the
official paper of the Hawaiian Government, and
that the leading article in the last issue, which is
a series of falsehoods and Misrepresentation,
was written by a Crown Minister apparently for
the purpose Of (regardless of the truth of the
statements uttered) injuring this paper and its
publisher-wesay, when this is taken into account,
the matter is Of some Importance.
But what else can be expected of a Minister
who secured the passage of a law to eject an
Attorney General, by requiring him to know how
to read and write Hawaiian, and then violated the
in accepting the Office himself; who publicly
declared that the old Constitution was sacred and
should never be u%nlawfully set aside, and who
himself wrote the draft of the new and helped to
stain the pages of Hawaiian History with the
foul deed Of violating popular rights and who to
this day uses the columns of the Gazette to
malign and falsify individuals, as we have in
stauced above, and repeatedly in previous issues?
An officer who acquires his position and infu-
ence by such dishonorable means; and an official
conducted apparently for the prime
object of uttering and reiterating false statements
may be deemed by a servile few to be indispensa-
BILE to successful government. But an admins
tration which looks for support to such men and
measures, can never expect to win what lies at the
foundation of the security of every stable govern
ment-popular sympathy and support.