Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-08-18

AN ORGAN EXPOSED.
The San Francisco Chronicle has made
the Hawaiian treaty and the sugar question
hobby. On that string it harps on the
slightest pretense. The motive of the
Chronicle is well understood. That jour-
nal was bought by sugar interests, and
it does not lie in the mouth of the Ctroni.
.cle Il deny ii,
at let us examine the matter indie
IDENTIFY of that fact, and first let US see
what the enemies of the Hawaiian re.
iprocity complain. 1t is set out that sugar
from q to cents higher here than at
the East, although free of duty here, while
an import of q cents is laid on there.
The truth is, even if we exclude the con-
sideration of distance from the East, that
Hawaiian sugar is just as free in New York
as in California. Cuban sugar, it must be
borne in mind, pays as high duty in San
Francisco as in New York, though the rate
is not the exact figure the compliments
allege. AS the sessions of Congress come
on, the assaults upon the Hawaiian treaty
are uniformly renewed, and the hired
Chronicle leads them, claiming that the ab-
rogation of the treaty would save consum-
ers on this coast on sugar over 81, 900, 900
per annum. II the consumer is to be thus
II he oF
tion per pound to him. Suppose raw sugar
can be delivered at New York or San Fran
cisco at a given figure duty free, and the
refined sells at an advance of cents in
New York and fer twice the cost of the
raw material in San Francisco, how can
the imposition of q duty on the raw ma
terial at San Francisco drive the refner to
sell at less price! Ordinary business
sense would teach that it would rather
cause an advance. In other words, how
do the opponents OF the treaty propose to
establish that added cost to the raw ma
terial will compel the manufacturer to sell
for less profit?
But to approach the question of the treaty
more closely. II brought about the same
relations between the Islands and the
United States as were sustained between
Louisiana and the rest of the country.
Just so far as it is commercially concerned
It was annexation. The tariff erected a
barrier between our ocean neighbor and
ourselves, and the treaty swept it away.
The plain common-sense course of reason.
ing brings the conclusion that such break-
ing down OF an anti. commercial wall is ben
efcial to the country.
Since the products OF these islands were
sold in San Francisco the islanders come to
our metropolis to purchase supplies. The
commercial aggregate of this traffic was in
the year 1882 $4,000, 600 paid to the trade
of San Francisco-that is to say, San Fran
cisco sold IS. 0OO. 900 worth of goods to the
Sandwich Islands in that year.
1t is fact in political economy that the
people buy in the markets where they can
sell, and we may add that is the best market
where the seller OF product can lay in
supplies, and it is the best evidence of q
good market that it affords him that oppor-
tunity. Now, had the tariff continued to
exist the trade Of the Islands would have
gone to Liverpool. The idea of protecting
the industry of country by tariff is fal.
lacious, and the time will come when it
will be considered fooliah to entertain any
such notion. No better illustration of the
foolishness Of the tariff is furnished than
by the forces put into operation by the
negotiation of the Hawaiian reciprocity
treaty. They threw down the old embargo
existing in the commercial relations be-
tween the Islands and this country.
The treaty measure was passed to ruin
the business of Claus Spreckels, who. being
, San Francisco sugar reiner. got bis