The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-09-11
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS.

[''Gazette,' Sept. 9. HI Gazette Sept. 8. |
The history of this The sale of the sugar
affair is an interestinglcrop by the independ-
one. Three gentle ent plan tiers to the
men went over to the American Sugar Re-
Coast to try anu selllinery is one of the
the sugar crop of the most impOrtant events
Islands to Mr. Spreck-i which has happened
els. He would have for the past two or
none. of it. Half Oflthree years. 1t means
the crop was offered the emancipation of
and still he would the Isl nds from the
nave none Of it. Heltyranny of a mOnOp-
was reasoned with Jolly. No sooner was
he was told that itlthe news made public
would be better fOrlthan people began to
him TO buy, but still breathe more freely;
he would have noneIa sort of incubus had
of it. He greatlyIbe been taken off the
miscalculated. In a body polite.
matter of this kind
there Can be but one
mistake, and Mr.
Spreckeis has proba-
bly, made the one mis-
take of his life. Time
will show. There is
no color for the
slightest suggestion
that the planters have 4.
done what they have
done without giving
Mr.. Spreckels ample
opportunity to hold
his own. The disas-
trous mistake is his
own.
Would our weekly contemporary
be good enough to reconcile the above
statements, which are taken from its
editorial articles of above date. Both
cannot be true. If it be fact, as in
deed it is. that the planters agents
were most anxious to sell their sugar
to Colonel Spreckels on the old terms,
were they net voluntarily seeking to
place themselves and their principals
in the power of "tyranous monOp-
Oly?" And if the emancipation of
the Islands from the tyranny of u
monopoly has taken place, was not
the act of emancipation carried into
effect by the ''chief tyFantv against
the urgent solicitation Of the en-
shaved? There can be no doubt what
ever of this, according to the 'Ga-
Zette," but inasmuch as there has
never been a sugar monopoly ZEN
shaving the Islands," so there has
been no emancipation from it's tyr
amy.
The Gazette" is VIGOROUSLY the
mOuthpiece of small clique which
Is bitterly opposed to Colonel Spreck-
els, and this explains the malignant
tone of one of the foregoing extracts.
There is lack of consistency in its
abuse, however, although an attempt
TO qualify the admissions of fact in
the first quotation above given was
made at its close. The Gazette"
adds:
That our planters had no reasonable
cause of complaint against Mr.. Spreckels is
untrue, however. If planters or agents at
tempted TO be independent they found their
sugars unbought, aud the San Francisco
market closed against them.
There is not a planter or planters
agent on these Islands who would
venture to put his signature to this
statement. They are now "inds-
pendent" Colonel Spreckels did not
buy their sugar, and they say this was
the one fatal mistake of his business
career. They are now free from his
Tyranny aud yet condemn him for
granting them their freedom.
Could anything be more absurd than
All this9 It may be taken for granted
that the California Sugar Refinery
understands its own business require
nsents, and that the refusal to buy
what it did not want was not such
mistake as its opponents think it
was. The independent planters
have made contract, presumably on
the best possible terms obtainable,
Tor the sale of their sugar. Let US
hone sincerely that it will not prove
to be tbs one grand mistake of their
business career. We should regret
essis. Just as We would regret misfor-