The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1885-07-13
MONDAY, JULY 1S, 1885.
ANNEXATION AND SUCH.

1He aPpeal0iS Va VIZ 'Ao'' ~
M. Daggett, ex-Minister of the
United States, on his native strand,
with some little commission from
either the King or Government of
Hawaii in his pocket, of business to
be despatched through his kindness
in Washington, has caused discus
sion all over the Union. An idle
rumor took wing, it seems, that the
mission with which Mr.. Daggett was
charged related to the question OF
annexing the group to the United
States. One not bad result of the
rumor has been the clicitation of a
variety of American sentiment re-
garding the relations of the two
countries. The following editorial
remarks of the Alta California, the
chief Democratic organ of the Pacific
Coast, bode well for the policy of
the present administration toward
the reciprocity treaty. They are,
moreover, a gratifying illustration of
the change that has come over the
California press, since few months,
in that regard. At the time the
famous exhibit by San Francisco
merchants, of the benefits of free
commercial intercourse, was tele-
graphed to Washington, the San
Francisco Merchant was about the
only paper on the Coast that did not
evince violent prejudice against the
treaty. Now the Alta California
says:-
The Post says the Alta makes
merry over the report that ex-Minis-
ter Daggett is going to Washington
to interest himself in securing the
annexation of the Hawaiian Islands.
No, that is not the case. Our re-
marks were in reply to the statement
that he was going on to sell the
Islands. The Post also calls atten-
tion to the fact that out of fifteen
millions invested in the sugar busi-
ness in the Islands, ten millions is
American capital, and that an abro-
CATION of the present treaty would
be ruinous to the investors. We
agree to all this, but we think We
know the treaty will never be abro'
gated. A treaty which is of so mucE
benefit to our coast, and which in nc
possible manner Injuries any othel
section of the Union, will hardly bt
abrogated. To do SO would simply
cripple our commerce, and would
look very much like vindictiveness
on the part of the Government.
Not less decided are the uttcrance
of the Call in its issue of June 9TH
The loss of revenue, upon which tn
changes were SO loudly rung a littl
while ago, is now regarded by tina
paper as trivial compared with tn
Importance of keeping the island
from falling under domination 'othe
than American. This is what tn
Call says:-
Commenting upon the report tina
the King of the Hawaiian Islands wa
willing to sell his homestead to th
United States, an Eastern journ;
saws the islands would be source c
weakness to the United States, inas
much as they would be an expose
outpost which we should be calle
upon to defend against naval attacks
We fail to see the force of this oil
lection. The islands are from the
geographical position under the pr,
lection of the United States. III
Monroe doctrine applies to thel
quite as forcibly as to Mexico {
Central America. The islands
the hands of naval power would |
a constant menace to the Americs
States on the Pacific Coast. Coz
siderations of this character ha,
justified the present reciprocit
treaty, which forms an exception
our general commercial policy. III
few millions of revenue we lose a
OF little consequence compared wi
the inevitable consequence of Il
islands falling under European j
fiuences. We do not regard the a
nexation of the islands as at prese
of much Importance, but our oblig