The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-10-22
CLAN BOSTON REPLIES,


answer to my letter { attained in the
BULLETIN on the pre-, 5us Wednes-
day.
The writer. of the rigmarole in the
Advertiser" commences his screed
by accusing my letter of "gross mis-
representation, downright lying"
and other epithets which could only |
be found in missionary newspaper;
but, as his pent-up wrath subsidies
exhaustion, he finally addresses me
as "my dear Clan"
--- Accusations of Misrepresentation,
ETC., are easily made whether true or
false; but proof is more difficult, and
we will briefly examine how far the
writer in the ADVERTISER" or posi-
bly, the advertiser" man himself,
can disprove what stated as facts.
He first denies my assertion that
Hawaiian trade is decreasing and
that most of our enterprising for
eigners have left and others are
leaving" He confesses ignorance of
the meaning of Hawaiian trade,'
and it is quite evident that he is
equally in the dark regarding the
meaning of ''enterprising foreign
ers." He seems to be under the
impression that "enterprising for
eigners'' mean missionaries, but
that is not my meaning. Imean the
whole foreign population; as the
white individuals are all enterprisr
ing more or less, otherwise they
would never have come here. A
few lines further down in his screed
the advertiser" man, signing him
self X, admits that Hawaiian trade
'shas decreased" but he is not SO
sure that it is still decreasing. Far
ther on in his letter he takes another
squirt and raves about "dense igno-
rance, deliberate Justification, mon
strous assertion" ETC., to such an
extent that the suspicion arises of
an arduous search for strong epith-
cts in his dictionary. Not satisfied
with his Interpretation of the phrase
"enterprising foreigners" he makes
another trial, and defines the phrase
to mean merchants, capitalists,
owners and managers of plantations
and ranches, intelligent professional
men, and proprietors of manufac-
turing establishments He does
not include mechanics unless they
are proprietors, and he totally ig-
nores the existence of all employees,
clerks, laborers, and business men
not included in his classification.
My assertion that 'the policy of
material progress should be agitated
until the next election" had, it
seems, an Arctic severity that
chilled him; and for this he ought
to be thankful, considering the fe-
verish state of mind he must have
been in while he was putting his
screed together.
The only matter in which X has
any apparent advantage in his letter
is in regard to looping off "the
King, warriors etc. 1t was SO
printed l admit; but in the. original
the phrase was written "the King s
warriors leaving out of the
''s'' being printers error. To lop
off the King was far from my mean
ing.
1t is needless to follow this col
umn-and-a-half scribler farther in
his TRADE of counter assertions and
cloven-footed missionary bull-doz-
ing; because he has not disproved a
single statement that / made in my
former letter, and he evades in a
shuffiing manner, the chief issue OF
the contention. Although he had
abundant space, and evidently has
plenty of time, he makes no reply tc
several of the most important
charges in my letter. The following
assertions, which / now repeat, arr
still unanswered and likely to re
main in that condition because the,
are unanswerable.
"1st. The public domain is lock
ed against small capitalists, ant
most of our valuable public land
lie waste and improbable.
I'd. Much of the country is mac
cessible owing to lack of sufficient,
good roads, or no roads at all il
places where those highways ar
urgently needed.
3rd. Public works are compare
lively at a standstill, and artisan
and laborers have consequently in
sufficiepcy of work.
4th. The common necessaries O
life are too expensive.
9th. Capital made on the Island
seeks iii ,estment elsewhere-evel
the oldest residents (of the mission
ary party especially prefer Unite'
States securities for their amasse'
wealth."
The above important assertions
and believed by me to be facts, weI
the pith of my former letter; an
the writer in the "Advertiser" eithc
avoids them altogether, or change
their impofC so as to suit his dia
tribes. In no case does he disprov
a single sente, that l have writ
ten; and his counter charges sho'
the cloven heof of the missionary
the bull-dozing policy of the social
ed "reform party" and the unmis
taxable ring of the toady.