The Hawaiian gazette., 1873-04-23

] IT is always disagreeabe to have to correct
misrepresentation. but when they are purposely
made and apparently with malicious intent, it
becomes necessary to do so. We, denied in our
last issue, having had any conversation with the
editor of the Nuhou in which the Master and
Servants law was referred to, or making asser-
tons to him directly contrary to our well-known
sentiments. In his issue No. l6, be attempts to
back up his volunteer assertion with quotations
from the Adrefissr nearlyifve years ago. We
quote from the NuhoW:
"In an editorial article, headed Bonded Labor
ers' Sept g. 1868 be says: it is the belief OF many
the Reciprocity Treaty, and that it has been used by
the opponents OF the Treaty abroad against the Gov
ernment'
By reference to the paper of that date, we find
that it was engaged III replying to the Gazette
aud was stating the substance of what the Ga
zese asserted to have been the causes of the
failure of the treaty. The original reads follows:
1.-The whole article in the Ministerial organ ap-
pears to have been written for the sole purpose of
misleading foreign communities or individuals for
purpose not yet apparent II is the belief OF many
that the e0oe system stands in tue way OF the Reel
procity Treaty. and that has been used by the op
poueuts Of the Treaty abroad against the Govern
meut."
Mark the bold mutilation of our language, in
leaving out the very important word coolie"
aud substituting bonded labor" Had it been
the opinion of the then editor of the Adre74iser,
would 1t not have read" 1t is our belief" in
stead of 1t is the belief Of many Others
Again
"In the article OF October 10, 1865, Who Killed
the Treaty. in speaking Of the various causes,
marks: now whether II has been the writers for
this paper for instance who have discussed the labor
question rather freely; or certain Others" &c.
On reference to the AdreTfiser and the Gazette
of October, 1868, we find that the entire para
graph gives another meaning. Here too we
were 10 dispute with the ministerial organ, and
summed up its argument from which the NtlEou
clips out few lines and eEdeavors to present the
quotation as our sentiments. The whole para
graph in the Adceyfiser of 1868, is as follows:
Something Of this kind may have been true in
regard TO the result of the abors of the distinguish
ed diplomat whose return after eighteen months of
frutess labor IN behalf OF the Reciprocity treaty is
dolefuy announced In the Gdzefs Of the 7th inst.
The efforts OF that gentleman were perhaps rendered
nugatory through the acts of those who insisting
every act has tended to dspage and defeat its rail-
fcation.' Now, whether It has been certain per-
sons the writers for this paper for instance, who
have discussed the labor question rather freely and
given the system some hard names; or certain
Others who tenacious of the high dignity pertain
ing to, and emoluments from, positions oftrust and
honor In this Government hare hypocrifiedlly pre-
tended to advocate this treaty. while at heart, blind
ed by national prejudices, have really been opposed
10 It. and have watched, aud so far as lay in their
power fkrared eUeTg calculated TO promote lis
ratification whether they are not the guilty parties
who have insisted that they we're favorable to il,
while their every act has tended 10 oisparage and
defeat its ratidcation is question which will bear
some Investigation
Again, bis quotation of our endorsement of bis
character, is entirely spoiled by the context
which be purposely omitted. Here it is:
"Nov Let our readers judge for themselves as to
whether gentleman OF, SO far as we know, unim-
peached Teracty would so far stulty himself as 10
publish to the world such statement, II untrue,
whether the Minister, who is supposed to have de-
berztey written the denial quoted above, is to be
believed There may be some satisfactory explana-
ton offered but until there is, the public have the
right to believe that base and deliberate al=ehood
has been uttered" Meaning, either BY Mr.. Gibson
or the Minister.
These viii suffice to show that in each instance
the original, when read with the context, convey
ed an entirely differed meaning from that which
be, by initiating attempts to give the garbled
extracts in the Euhou. We eharitably supposed
that certain grave charges which stand sworn to
and are on file amoag the records Of the Court
were false; bat the public, after examining tkese
mutations, may form Its own opinion respecting
Hose