The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1875-03-13

The Daily Post, (San Francisco) of Feb. 20,
under the head Of Cold Cheek thus speaks Of
Vine protest:
This is an age Of cheeky documents. but about
the most cheeky document Of which we have heard
FOR some time i the protest Of the San Francisco sugar
rehners against the reciprocity treaty with the Sand
uieh Islands. sent to our delegation At Washington.
Messrs. Nicholas Luning, Claus Spreskles, NJ. Ehr-
man, {. J. Hutchinson and Herman Meese, the Presi-
dents and managers Ct the four sugar re6neries and
one beet root sugar factory, coolly ask that the people
OF the Pacific coast may lie prohibited BY taxes from
getting cheap sugar. in order that they may make
money. They call the sugar planters Of the Sand
Uich Islands undergraduates Americans. who have
renounced their allegianca to this country, and ask
Why they, the signers, leal citizens, should be ner-
cileasly slaughtered, and the work Of their hands.
brains, and enterprise. given over TO the stranger
and ssifSxpatriAted AneTican,' By letting The people
Of The Pacific Coast have their sugar free Of duty.
Considering that these very men have in the last few
years paid large fines 70 the Government for having
attempted 10 avoid the duties on sugar By bribing
Government employees, this 10 the very snblimity Of
cheek
The letter of Mr.. David A. Wells to Senator
Jones Of Nevada, (Which was published in Wash
ington on the 25th ult., but the full text Of which
has not reached us) seems to have caused much
surprise to the free traders and friends Of Hawai-
ian reciprocity. They characterize il as sophis-
teal, his argument being based confessedly on
the negotiations of 1867, while the now pending
treaty is a widely different measure, covering a
larger number OF articles to be reciprocally intro
duced duty free, including tea, -four. hemp,
manufactures OF wool, leather, lumber, iron, steel.
and other metals, and all manufactures Of cotton;
also, under amendment to be made by the Senate,
tobacco. To Wells assertion that Hawaii offers
nothing Of substantial value in return for the
ropraaaforu ff u ropIiad that che ncara a fraa
market for practically all American manufactures;
also, that the obvious political consideration for
proposed closer relations are paramount.
By the t~elegraphic reports of Mr.. Wells letter
he is represented as having characterized our
treaty as a " swindle, " and declared that it would
take from the u. S. Treasury a million a year.
This is mere assertion, for it is somewhat ques-
t;onable as to how much or how little it would
deplete the Treasury. ANY body may know how
much our exports of sugar into the United States
have paid into the Treasury. But the question
comes up, what is the value of the Hawaiian
exports to the United States, and what is the
value of the Hawaiian imports from the United
States? If they are nearly equal, it shows that
it is through our tariff that the United States are
81 900 900 the gamers on our trade. Suppose
the Hawaiian tariff were q copy of that of the
United States,-and leaving out articles W. do
not or cannot productive are of opinion that
the boot would be on the other leg, by several
hundred thousand dollars. Any one who viii
look over our imports frem the United States and
their rate of duties, will readily see this. d.
But it remains to be seen whether, in view of
the opposition which has developed, the treaty
will receive the necessary two-tbirds vote in the
Senate. Passing this ordeal, it must then lie
over until the meeting of Congress at the regular
session in December next, when it will come up
for final action by the House of Representatives.
By that time, the Democrats will be in a majority
in that branch of Congress, and they, if true to
the ancient instincts of the party, will favor free
trade.