The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1876-03-18
THE q
Commercial AObettiser.
.SATURDAY. MARC Is-

dreamed Of by the projectors Of the memorial
and the end Is apparently not yet. The exhibit
ton has been a sad one, wherein we have seen a
Minister of the Crown losing his temper in public,
forgetting that
"Caifnness IS great advantage. He that lets
Another ehsfe, may warm him at his Ere,
a as eaa aa ms fs gahq,fi .ss:t and nd. enjoy 70 h his fFet''
The blunders on the Ministerial side of the
controversy have been repeated and inexcusable,
and, as we have before observed, constitute ample
proof Of incOmpetency. Common prudence, to
say nothing of craftsmanship, would have die
tated a Ministerial reply which in dignifed terms
should simply have acknowledged with brief
thanks the receipt of the memorial and assured
the signers that the important subject of which
it treated should receive careful attention. ONLY
this, and nothing more, would have prevented
not to say snubbed-the spirit of controversy
that has since ragged; the memorial would have
gone into the Ministerial waste-basket and ere
long have been forgotten, whilst somnolence and
" the study of the rocks once more would have
prevailed within the shades of Aliiolani House.
But other councils prevailed, and the Ministerial
reply was the unfortunate result, followed on
Saturday last, by the still more unfortunate
blunder of an ill-advised and Incorporate letter
from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, printed in
the shape of a circular and addressed to the
memorialists. We need scarcely say that the
latter were surprised and indignant at both the
matter and manner Of the Minister'S letter. 1t
was yoluminOus, and crude in a literary point of
view, and otherwise stilted, defiant and actually
insulting. For the satisfaction of our readers
outside of Honolulu, we print the remarkable
faEfar of the Mipisfar Jonathan NTH N uar obIa
and sufficiently sarcastic reply from the pen of
the Hon. Mr.. Carter, on a supplement accom-
panying to-day's paper. A plain, matter of fact
history of the origin of the memorial will also
be found in another column.
An appeal to public opinion over the signature
Of a Crown Minister is a proper subject for COM
ment by the press; we preface ours by saying
that, in common with the generality of the signers
of the memorial, this letter is to us a source of
sincere regret. One naturally experiences an un-
pleasant shock to find q character that we had
estimated rather highly for sound discretion and
a philosophical mind, thus suddenly developed,
by the agency of 30 simple an ordeal, into a
second-rate political demagogue. man ofexperi-
ence and the adviser of a King has treated a loyal
and patriotic address in a most offensive manner {;
for common sense, to say nothing of diplomacy
or state craft, would have admonished a Minister
of any proper judgment, even had the address
been Objectionable in matter or manner, to re-
ceive it with a quiet dignity and an assurance of
future consideration.
We shall not undertake to follow the Minister
throughout his lengthy e%ffusion; We can only
refer to some salient points. And first we con-
denim the demagogic spirit which pervades it.
The signers of the address are tainted with an
arrogation of popular representation-an assump-
ton which is nowhere borne out in words or
circumstances connected with the address. The
signers never dreamed of any exclusive action, or
of declining the association of their names with
those of any of their fellow-citizens, whether
mechanics or traders, natives or foreigners. The
address was q spontaneous expression of loyal
advice to the Crown; it was not intended to be
generally circulated, and it did not pretend to
represent the feeling of the whole country, but
only of so many residents as might suffice to gain
the earnest consideration of HIS Majesty. It's
presentation was perhaps somewhat hasty, for
had this been delayed, the number of signatures
would have been largely increased.
The taunt of an offensive exclusiveness, because
no native Hawaiian names were appended to an
oNAASDo ~ bHS b6hGA Aoh6AoSS, 10 oh lAAclbudblOn
of demagogism contemplate in a politician, but
culpable, almost criminal, in a Minister.
Surely a more express assurance of native SYM
pathy was hardly necessary when it is remem-
bered that the address advocated the repopuIa-
ting the country by cognate races of saving the
decaying remnant of the Hawaiian race of per-
petuating the independence of the country and
of maintaining the native sovereignty. 1t was
fair to assume that the native sympathies should
be with the memorialists, and all the more that
reference could be made to the words of the
patriotic Kamehameha ", the declarations of
the present sovereign, and the late appropriation
by native legislators of $50, 900 for immigration
and allied purposes.
Had the Minister been able to assure the memo
rialists that he had tried, even if unsuccessfully,
to expend this fund for immigration purposes,
we could have recognized a greater faithfulness to
his trust than now, when far from having done
so he even attempts to divert attention with his
doubts as to the possibility of any recuperatiOn
of the Hawaiian race. He does not care to con-
ciliate the opinion or win the confidence of the
community, but, on the contrary, tries to set
class against class, race against race. He in
dulges in a series of contemptuous insinuations,
forgetting at once both the courtesy of the gen.
tleman and the dignity of the Minister. In con-
clusion we have to repeat our regrets that the
Minister for Foreign Affairs shows in the letter
before US, how singularly he is misled by a mis-
Judging, indisereet and Incorporate spirit, the
exhibition of which is insulting to the memo
~rialists, derogatory to the dignity of the King
and the government, and injurious to the welfare
of the country.
And now the serious question is, can a gentle
man who has betrayed such pitiful elements of
weakness and incapacity in a discussion with his
fellow citizens-such a scant appreciation of the