The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-03-05

THE RECIPROCITY TREATY.

The San Francisco Chronicle of a
late date had an editorial headed
"Abrogate the Treaty" 1t regretted
that seventeen working days then
only remained to Congress, but took
comfort in the thought that although
all useful legislation would probably
fail, Mr.. Cleveland might be induced
to abrogate the Hawaiian treaty.
There was just that single ray of hope
Ieft-a drop of honey, as it were, in
cup of gall. 1t was useless to look
for sympathy to the outgoing Adj
ministration, for President Arthur
had recommended a renewal of the
old treaty, and Mr.. Frelinghuysen,
Secretary of State, had actually
signed a new one. However, "tbe
House has refused even to take up the
subject" remarks our contemporary.
"The inference is plain that the people
do not favor it, and Cleveland will
find himself in harmony with pub
lie sentiment if he gives Hawaii
the notice required in the treaty of
1857
But the Chronicle does not state
the facts exactly. The House did not
refuse to take up the Hawaiian bill,
for the very sufficient reason that no
bill was submitted to it. Further
more, the new treaty was not even
considered by the Senate, test vote
on the treaty policy of the Admins
tration having been taken on the
Nicaragua Canal Convention. It's de-
feat determined the Senate to proceed
no further with the treaties during the
session. Just what the fate of the
Hawaiian convention would have
been is unknown, because no oppor-
tunity was given to find out; but we
are prepared to admit that the clamor
raised against the Spanish and Cen
trail American treaties and the OppO-
sition of California to the Mexican
treaty, would have operated preju-
diclally to it. We think, further
more, that it was mistake to nego-
tiate new convention with the out
going administration, more especially
as the change of administration in
yolved transfer of power from the
Republican to the Democratic party
What the House of Representatives
rafvsed to take up was the bill amend
ing the tariff to comply with the pro-
visions of the Mexican treaty. It die
so for reasons altogether apart from
the merits of the treaty itself. 1t die
not want to help the Republican
party to control tariff legislation after
its late defeat by the country. The
Mexican treaty was promoted by
General Grant and a railroad syndi
cate which subsequently acquired
large tracts of land in Mexico, to b.
cultivated by Chinese contract labor
Every man connected with these en-
terprises was a leading Republican
who stultified himself by making thu
Presidential light on the basis of {
protective policy. The House, being
Democratic, would not rake the Re
publican chestnuts out of the fire
hence its refusal to consider thu
Mexican Treaty bill. And that il
all there is in the point relied upoI
by the Chronicle as indicative of hos
tility to the Hawaiian treaty. We
do not think the treaty will be abro
GATED. and for that reason he would
suggest that our representative in
Washington should let well alone
Tt is time enough to talk about nego
tiating a new treaty when existing
conditions are endangered.
Our contemporary branches ou
into an industrial and economic argu
ment against the treaty, which it il
unnecessary to reply to. 1t is no
nertinent to the issue. The fact tina
the Alyardo refinery makes gooC
oualitv of beet sugar is no argu
noent against commercial reciprocity
with the Hawaiian Kingdom, any
more than it would be sufficien
argument for stopping the publica
ton of the San Francisco C1TonicI'
because the ADVERTISER IS published
daily in Honolulu.
GERMAN ANNEXATION IN THE PACIFIC