The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-12-11
THE MUCH ABUSED QUESTION.

The MUCH ABUSED QUESTION.
The reply of Mr.. Hartwell to Mr..
Kinney has much meat in it, but of
an unsatisfying kind. 1t predicates
our helplessness against the Mongo-
liam deluge in the arts and trade,
upon premises of equal rights to all
nationaiities coming here. 1t meets
the objection that, on the same
score, it is not just that Chinese
have not the franchise, by saying
that the franchise is not an inalien-
able right. Neither, as can be shown
by very prominent examples, is the
right of acquiring property or of
holding it inalienable, even in that
hoasted home of freedom, the United
States. The body polite is the
governing public-the public that
votes its own rulers into power.
None outside of that body can claim
any property rights except such as
may be secured to them by treaty,
conferred upon them by the grace
of the governing body, or inhering
in them incidentally by the opera
ton of laws, that are nearly univer-
sal, for the conservation of peace in
society.
Does Mr.. Hartwell dare say that
it would be unconstitutional or even
unjust for the Great American COM
monwealth to inhibit the transplant
alton of the curses of absentee
landlordism or serfdom of any
species from Europe to the midst of
its own free domain, by means of
laws restricting the rights of aliens in
acquiring immense tracts of its fer
tile and grazing territories? Yet
that is right of property acquisi-
ton analogous, to say the least, to
those rights that we think we need
TO bar to the Chinese in these ISL
ands. IF no more Chinese are i'm
ported here, there is little. Then
only little fear for the future
present hardship would be to en-
| counter.
There is little to say in reply to
Mr.. Hartwell's argument that re-
strictive measures would require to
be backed by force, a backing that
most people will agree with him we
do not adequately possess. 1t is
not wise, however, to give such pro-
minent utterance to so paralysing a
sentiment. The fact is the Chinese
| are only restrained now from taking
insolent licenses by the fear of such
force as is visible. Witness their
foul crimes where the police are few
and far between. Even on this ISL
and, on the Koolau side, how often
do they institute little reigns of
terror, boldly and with deadly malice
attacking the handfuls of police
going to suppress their lawlessness?
Let Mr.. Hartwell say at once, for
that is the logical outcome of his
words, that only protectorate, with
naval and garrison concomitant, of
one of the Powers can save us from
national extinction at the hands of
the Chinese coolies.
l shall not revamp the frequently
canvassed proposition relative to the
basis of our civilized state being
an ample proportion of people
bred to civilization. That is
so self-evident that the marvel of
Mr.. Hartwell's letter is that he does
not attempt to offer any consolation,
nor present any solution of the pro-
blem involved, in this regard. His
whole status is the "chestnut" that
we cannot do without more Chinese,
who will perpetuate the process of
disintegration under the protection
Of fallaciously assumed equal rights
to that nationality. Japanese immi-
grafton has solved the labor ques-
ton, and the solution is one that
will abide, provided that the Japa-
nese receive that decent treatment
on the plantations which they have
reason 10 expect at the hands of a
class who shout for justice and equal
rights to the Chinese whenever
asked to come to the help of a realm
threatened with political destruction
from the Monaghan incursion.
Mr.. Hartwell's remarks on Portu-
guese and native competition are be-
side the question. In the first place,
the Portuguese and natives compe-
tent TO drive other people TO the
wall will necessarily be qualified to
fill their places in the state with
credit. Portuguese nor natives will