The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1873-02-22

y proposition which strikes At the life OF a nation.
in whatever form it comes, is startling. Ii should
arouse the thought of the nation assaulted to the most
vigorous action-to the most prompt measures to
meet the evil. More especially should this be the
case when the blow aimed ct national existence-at
national independence, comes not from the natives Of
the soil, but from men of foreign birth. Under our
government all men have n right to express their
opinions upon any political subject, provided they do
not violate the laws; but should this expression Of
opinions be directed against the independence of the
nation, under whose flag they find protection ?
And is it wise and in accordance with the sound allie
glance which men owe to the government whose pro-
lection they enjoy. to form a political party, whose
object is to barter away its independence?
From all indications. a party in favor of annexa-
ton, Is now in process of formation in these islands.
What are the constituent elements Of this party? Are
they of the native people? Do they spring FROM the
people and represent the masses, or are they the
representatives of n particular class or i>terest? A
very thorough acquaintance with public opinion on
all the islands has convinced the writer, that not a
single native is in favor of Observation-Disclosures
away the independence of his country. On the
other hand, whenever the subject has been mentioned,
they have met the proposition with indignation.
They unanimously condemn the idea Of merging
their national existence into another nationality,
however powerful or great it may be. Their reasons
urged are strong and conclusive. They maintain,
NH~N fH
would not only be lost, but the dominant annexing
race would soon oyer-run the country, get possession
of their lands, the native population would become
subservient and down trodden by the foreign popu-
latiOn. They point to California as n near example.
They state that annexation might benefit Il few par
tlcular interests, capitalists and sugar planters, while
it would be destructive to the Hawaiian people, not
only as a nation, but they would be absorbed in the
annexing race, and the places that know them now,
would soon know them no more. They believe that
the question of annexation is entirely of foreign
growth, like the parasite that clings to and surrounds
the tropical forest tree till it brushes out its life and
nsurps its place.
= Would it not be wiser and more prudent for our
foreign residents TO wait till n single native Of the
islands, raises his voice in favor of annexing his
country to a foreign power, before they commence
forming n party, or even giving publicity to the
proposition? The Hawaiian Government, with a
liberal policy, has extended its protecting hand to
our foreign residents, has fostered and encouraged
them. has given them power and place, and does it
not come with n bad grace from them to infict the
first stab at Hawaiian independence? The husband
man, who warmed the frozen viper to life in his
bosom, and was repaid by a bite from its poisonous
fangs, furnishes an illustration.
Would the reciprocity treaty with The United States
be beneficial to our interests? This is q question
which admits of serious consideration. Doubtless it
would benefit the sugar planter, some local interests
and some capitalists, but would it benefit the mass of
the Hawaiian people? All laws should operate
equally and extend their benefits alike upon rich and
poor. But would q treaty which would have a
ltuutuCJ " ulh IL ~ iASlASA IL tnC pOON ~
be of that class? Would a measure which benefited
one thousand of our population, while it operated to
the prejudice of fifty thousand be equal and just.
Let US examine the question briefly. A trelty of
reciprocity, by which our sugar, coffee, rice, and
other productions were admitted free of duty in the
United States, as an equivalent for various articles
from the United States admitted free of duty here,
would create q deficit in our revenue that would
have to be supplied by direct taxation on the mass of
the people, or from some other source. Now would
it be according to the principles of a just and equit-
able government to say that the fifty thousand natives
of these islands should be taxed for the benefit of the
one thousand capitalists, or planters. who are bene-
fitted by the reciprocity treaty?
Now L have no objection to the proposed treaty
of reciprocity, if that portion Of sOur population
who are to be benefited by it. are called upon To
pay an export duty. equivalent to the deficit that
the treaty would make in the treasury. That would
be equal and just. But do not call upon the labor
ing man. or the native struggling for n living on
his Kuleana, to pay this deficit for the benefit of the
capitalist or the planter.
Let us sum up the whole matter. Not a native
has raised a complaining voice against his Govern
ment. Not one has asked for annexation. Not one
has asked for a treaty of reciprocity. Not one has
complained of a want of prosperity. They are con-
tented with the King and Government, they love
their country and desire its independence, and are
prosperous and happy. They are better fed,
clothed and housed and better educated than any
other nation or people on our planet. and all they
want, is, to be let alone. If the political tinkering
of our foreign element, was only directed to a wise
economy, not only in the administration of the Gov
eminent. but in every department of life. and would
exert themselves to aid in the development of the
industrial resources of the country, they would
benefit Hawaii nei, if not themselves.
The annexation Of these Islands to any power
would be national death. Reciprocity, without
the export duty l have indicated, would bankrupt
the people. a NATIVE.