The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1875-03-20
From the S. F Daily Morning Can, March 7th
= a The Hawaiian Treaty.

q The treaty with Hawaii will probably be the most
1 prominent subject of consideration before the United
States Senate in extra session, at Washington this
wee, 2Judging from the previous course Of some Of
the shlest debators in the Senate-like Morton in the
West, land Edmunds in the East-there will be strong
opponents of the treaty. Morton says that now,
" when the time has come for the West TO develop
itself, and for the establishment Of our industries
anon sure foundations. we are met with the insane
cry Of free trade.' In his opposition to the Canadian
reciprocity treaty, this Senator assured the whole
Northwest that it had nothing to gain by the adop-
ton of such a treaty. Edmnnds, of Vermont, the
great opponent of free trade, said the country's re-
cuperation from the effects of the panic was largely
due to the protective tariff. and he will doubtless
oppose the Hawaiian treaty The opponents of these
men on the tariff question will antagonize the treaty
for other reasons. The Hon. David A. Wells, of Nor
Wich, Connecticut, the free trade apostle, at the
request of the Senator Jones. of Nevada, has given a
written opinion respecting the bearing of this pro-
posed treaty upon the revenues and commerce of the
country, in which he argues that the treaty would
give a subsidy of 100000 a year to twenty-five
American plantation owners In the Sandwich Islands,
and that annexation of these Islands would be de-
ferred by it. Mr.. Wells, who presided at the recent
Democratic Nominating Convention of Connecticut,
at which he made q trenchant speech in favor of the
doctrine of taxation for revenue only, says the only
element of Importance in this treaty is sugar, "the
duties upon the importation of which article now
constitute the largest and most reliable source of
gold revenue under our customs" He gives the
estimated annual sugar product of the Islands as
sc, 1000, 600 pounds, I" most of which finds it's way TO
the United States.' But he says the annual subsidy
which the free admission Of this would be equivalent
to voting the twenty-five American planters. wonld
be increased from $500, 900 to at least 81 ,000, 900
before the expiration of seven years, through the
temptation of increased profits in the sugar business.
The New York Times, in opposing this treaty. throws
out q hint that as the sugar refneries of San Fran
cisco draw their chief supply from Hawaii, il is barely
possible that the proposed treaty, fayoring the nm
portation free of duty, is simply o little business
device Of the refneries. The truth of this SUPPOSE |
ton has, of course. been negatived by the letter sent
ten days ago by these refneries 10 the Congressional |
delegation of the Pacific coast at Washington, giving |
their reasons why the treaty should not receive the
sanction of the Senate. They say the Islands are
capable of producing annually at1east 100, 000, 900
pounds of sugar, or 81 10000 pounds more than
the entire consumption of the Pacific coast. But as
they say the coast would take but 30 ,000, 600 pounds, |
this would leave 10000 900 pounds to be shipped
elsewhere. But our San Francisco merchants take |
quite q different view of this treaty, both from that |
of the refners and from Mr.. Wells. A half a hun
dred firms, whose names we're given in yesterdays
Call. have signed a communication TO Senators
Sargent and Booth, requesting their support Of the
treaty. They say if the treaty be ratified, it will
the United States q foothod in Hawaii. which
will prevent any other nation from controlling those
Islands; and that the benefits of releasing duties on
these Islands products will enure to consumers here
as well as to the planters In Hawaii, who are mostly
Americans. If the merchants have any stocks of
'ugars on hand, they are arguing against their inter-
ests, if the doctrine is true that the price of sugar 10
he American consumer will be reduced. Mr.. Wells
argues that it win not be reduced. Congress has
been legislating against the interests OF consum-
srs Of sugar in the passage of the new tariff bill, and
N favor of individual holders of this commodity. Al
IN illustration Of the effect Of the sugar duty, it is
that q single establishment In st Louis would
gain about $4,000 by the advance of a quarter Of a
per pound In the value of sugar which that firm
las now on hand.