The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-03-24
T FL e
THE LOUISIANA PLANTERS AND THE
TREATY.

Minister Carter, in his argument on
the treaty before the Ways and Means
subcommittee, said the Louisiana plant
ers were in favor of the treaty This was
promptly denied by Louisiana Congress-
men before the same committee on the
Tariff Bill, and good deal of prejudice
was evidently created against the treaty
by the superhuous misstatement of the
Hawaiian Minister. Indeed, how he
could have fancied that it would go
unchallenged passeth all understanding,
as he must have been acquainted with
the fact that the following resolutions
We're adopted at the monthly meeting
of the Louisiana Sugar Planters Associ-
alton, helg at New Orleans, January IA,
1886
Whereas, the Sandwich Islands sugar
crop produced there by Chinese and semi
slave labor, and introduced into our coun-
try free of duty, under the conditions of
the Hawaiian treaty without reduction in
the price to consumers, is each year in ur-
ing and unfairly competing with sugars in
the Mississippi Valley, the Sandwich Island
crop, which was but 81 900 tons in 1888, in
creaSing to 62 500 tons in 1884, and to 85,-
at $4,000 tons for the fiscal year of 1886,
soon ending; and, whereas, the Hon. w
b. Morrison has introduced into the
House OF Representatives the joint reSolu-
ton into the Senate, directing the Presi-
dent of the United States to give the neces-
sary notice for terminating the Hawaiian
treaty; therefore
Resolved, That the sugar planters of
Louisiana thank Mr. Morrison for his
action, and would request him TO push the
matter to a successful issue, and thereby
relieve our industry from this unfair COM
petition.
Resolved, That the sugar planters of
Louisiana are earnestly opposed to the So
called Mexican reciprocity treaty, which,
by placing sugar produced by peOn labor in
competition with our free labor sugar, will
ruin our industry.
Resolved, That copy of these resolu-
tons be transmitted to our Senators and
Representatives in Washington, and that
they be requested to earnestly aid IN the
abrogation of the Hawaiian treaty, and in
preventing the passage of the so-called
Mexican reciprocity treaty.
Now, if Minister Carter did not know
that these resolves had been adopted by
the Louisiana sugar planters, he failed
to keep himself advised upon a point
upon which, of all others, his official po-
sition demanded that he should be fully
informed If, on the other hand, he wa
so advised, his contrary statement was
at once injurious and foolish. In either
case, the representative of the Hawaiian
Kingdom at Washington failed in his
duty. There is no excusing or palliating
such conduct.
And behind these laches of the Min
lister is the business indiscretion of the
American Refinery in sending Hawaiian
raws to New Orleans at this juncture, to
compete in the only home producing
market of the United States. Business
exigencies may be pleaded as an excuse,
and doubtless these are admissible, but
we are fairly justified in the statement
that this competition is by no means
strengthening the treaty, although the
organs of the Opposition party in this
country praised the contractors for the
Hawaiian sugar crop for opening new
consuming markets. This was almost
as indiscreet as the shipment of
Islands sugar to New Orleans itself.
Should adverse action be taken by Con-
gress, the sugar producers of this country
viii know precisely who are to blame.
We hope for the best, however. The
treaty has strong and intelligent friends
who are not likely to commit such blum
ders in their advocacy as we have already
indicated were made in other quarters.