The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-03-26
FRIDAY, MARCH 2G, 1886.
the TREATY..


despatch that the Morrison bill pro-
poses to place rice on the free list
q fact not stated in the published
synopsis of the bill. 1t now pays
2d cents pound duty. On behalf
of the rice planters of South Caro-
lima Mr.. Trenholm of Charleston APP
peared before the Ways and Means
Committee to protest against the
repeal of the duty, and one argu-
ment which he used was that the
duty on rice is mainly paid by
Cinnamon in California, and that it
is about the only tax they do pay.
Mr.. Trenholm's position is indisput-
ably correct. The statistics of i'm
portation show that in 1884 fully
$4,000, 900 pounds of rice were en-
tered at Pacific coast ports. Most
of this vast quantity is consumed by
the Chinese, who, in spite of all the
assertions to the contrary, make rice
their staple diet.
Of the 7S,OO0,OO0 pounds inn
ported 100000 pounds comes
from Hawaii, and is duty free. In
speaking of the beauties of the re-
ciprocity treaty with the kanaka
kingdom, the importation of rice is
too often lost sight of. Yet the
figures are extremely instructive.
In 1875 the imports of Hawaiian
rice were 100000 pounds. In 1883
they were swelled to 1862, ,951
pounds under the beneiicent influ-
ence Of the treaty. While the United
States is permitting the Hawaiian
rice-planter-who is always a China
man-to send his rice to our country
duty free, the thrifty Mongol on the
islands imports rice from his native
land to feed his hands with. Thus
the statistics of the kingdom present
the anomaly of exporting and i'm
porting large quantities of the same
raw product. 1t is very neat
transaction for the Hawaiians, but
rather rough on Uncle Sans trea-
sury.
Instead of moving for the removal
of the duty from rice Mr.. Morrison
should make an effort to make that
which comes in free from Hawaii
pay tariff. People on the Pacific
coast who understand the matter
would regard the placing of rice on
the free list as deliberate sop to
the Chinese, who would be the
chief, if not the only, gamers by the
transaction.
The foregoing is from the San
Francisco Chronicle. 1t is sample
of the style of argument resorted to
by the opponents of the United
s-Hawaiian Treaty. From the
Chronicles standpoint, there seems
to be force in the statements pro-
duced, but the strength of the argu-
ment rests wholly on its manifest
unfairness. The statement is alto
gether one-sided. AS well might
the readers of the Chronicle tabu
that sheet and withdraw their sup.
port from it on the ground that the
paper was issued at q handsome
profit to the proprietors. That the
quantity of Hawaiian rice bought OF
the Pacific coast has increased under
the operations of the treaty is not tc
be denied, but to say that the grea
development of the rice trade is due
to the beneficent influence ," of tho
treaty is entirely too big a dost
of anti-treaty physic. Where thu
benefcent influence begins anC
ends will likely be more easily de
tected subsequent to the abrogatiol
of the treaty, than now. While tn
Chronicle and other papers try t.
make it appear that the trade of tn
Hawaiian Islands is wholly de
pendent upon the treaty, it may no
be out of place to recall the fac
that great part or the accumulate
wealth of this city, to-day, wa
amassed before the treaty came int
existence. The " benefcent intlu
ence" p" of the arrangement is repre-
sented to be all in favor of thi
country. But the S. F. Chronicl
and others of that ilk, forget to sa
anything about the benefcent in
fluence" exerted on the other side
The imports and exports of mel
chandise of this kingdom, for 1885
as stated in this paper some thre
weeks ago, amounted to $l2 1893,
S62, and the total value Of our eS