The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1883-01-06
DUTY oN.RICE.

Mr.. EDITOR: The provision of the treaty
which RENTS the duty upon rice is not the one
which has proved onerons to the United States,
but on the contrary, the. only one which has not
inflicted any commercial loss upon them. Be
fore the treaty, we sold 20 them 5000, 900 pounds
rice at 7@8 cents last year 1000, 900 pounds
at ~ cents. The duty RENTED is 202Ic. per
pound, The consumers of our rice now pay
fully as much as before the treaty, less the
amount of duty RENTED. Every cent lost to
the United States treasury went to the consumers
of our rice and not to the Hawaiian planters.
But the United States have not only lost moth
ing by encouraging oEr rice production, but
have had "A positive benefit. Without the
treaty, they would have had to import last year
G, 1000, 600 pounds rice more from China, aud
also would have had to pay coin for the whole oft.
There is no reason to suppose that the export
of produce of the United States to China would
have been increased if they had imported more
rice from there. For our rice the United States
pay one-half in coin and one-half in goods. The
lumber, bagging, tools, guns, shot, powder, part
of the clothing used by our rice planters would
not have been imported to Hawaii from the
United States if we had not sold our rice to
them. The rent for rice land of which the larger
part is paid to small land owners, and which
amounts to one-sixth of the value of the crop, is
largely spent for goods imported from the
United States. The whole profit of this trade
is clean gain to them. But it may be sa d !;
the rice is produced by Chinese, and the anti
Chinese feeling of the Californians has produced
a desire to reimpose the duty on rice. 1t would
be rather nonsensical, as the China-rice, which
would have to take the place of the Hawaiian, is
also produced by Chinese and they really reim-
pose the duty upon themselves. No. /, China
rice is quoted in San Francisco at $3.50, to sell
ours at $500 per cwt., we would have to produce
it S1.5 10 per cwt. cheaper; that we cannot do that,
should be clear to everybody. We could not sell
ours for less than z cents duty paid in California,
and we could not find buyers for more than 3, 000,-
900 lbs at that price. Our rice production would
have to be reduced to that amount for export.
Two thirds of our rice plantations would have to
be given up, and they will not be given up be-
fore every rice-planter is bankrupt. That may
be quite gratifying to some Californians, but
will they pay two cents per pound more for their
rice and lose a part of their trade TO bring it
about (?) The rumor that the reimposition Of
duty upon rice is one of the modifying conditions
named by the United States has been started in
Honolulu. Are there people on the Islands who
wish for more laborers and are selfish enough to
ruin another industry for no other purpose than
TO get them? Have, perhaps, the sugar planters
offered the rice planters as a yicarious sacrifice
for their own acknowledgement to the United
States, and expect the sacrifice to be accepted?
If their attempt TO scare King Kalakaua into dis
missing the present ministry had been successful,
the rice-planters would have had small cause to
hope that their interest would find no considera-
ton, while now they may hope not TO serve
as scape-goats for the real sinners, who assisted,
or at least did not prevent, one of the United
States monopolists to convert the free sugarclause
of our treaty, which treaty is intended for the
equal benefit of sugar producers in Hawaii, and
sugar-consumers in tie States, into the means
of filling his pockets from the earnings of all
su gar-consumers west OF the Rockies, and
thereby caused the fierce opposition to the
treaty. f. L..