The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-11-02

indifference, but that their acquisition
by the United States would be regarded
with more equanimity than their spolia-
ton by any European Power, to which
the British Government would never
submit"
The following is from the News
Letter, which has always been
looked upon as the exponent of
English sentiment in California.
We cannot vouch for the correct
ness of statements made:
THE FUTURE OF HAWAII.
1t has long been clear that the future
of Hawaii is not matter the United
States can leave to chance or look upon
with Indifference. As an important out
post, that would be valuable as a rem
devious for our shipping in time of war,
the little island kingdom must not be
allowed to pass into other hands. That
is our interest, and our sole interest in
the country. Its trade is ours, and will
remain ours, no matter what else hap
pens. Our location on the map of the
world insures that. We already have
Pearl Harbor, which would afford US all
the accommodation we might neeG in
time of war But we cannot afford to
let the other harbors pass into unfriend-
ly hands. What danger is there of that ?
England and Russia are the only powers
that could possibly have any use for
them. England's interest in Hawaii is
to prevent it's coming under Russian
dominion. Our taking of it would serve
her purpose admirably, and it is no
secret that she thinks so. In 1874, the
| Hon. J. II. Wodehouse, then, as now,
| British Minister at Honolulu, consulted
his government as to what he ought to
do in view of the proposed reciprocity
treaty with this country, which seemed
to him to be a step towards annexation
He was told to promote such annexation
by every means in his power. The
motive for such an instruction
is clear. England does not want
a Russian fortress at Hawaii, as q
set-of to what she has done at Esqui-
malt. England, France and the United
States long ago jointly guaranteed the
independence of the little Kingdom; but
neither OF our co-signatorIes would now
bother themselves about what we might
do in the premises. In taking Hawaii
the only people we should have to con
suit would be the Hawaiians themselves
and about that it seems there would be
trouble. 1t is a question whether the
present triple guarantee is not the
best arrangement for both us and Ha
waii. Having a land-locked and easily
fortified harbor, and all the trade the
country has, what further or other thing
is there that would do us any good? The
answer, of course, is that we want the
country to be independent of other in1u
ence in case of war. But how is thai
best secured? Annexation OF islands
two thousand miles distant, would be
the Inauguration of a new policy very
antagonistic to the Monroe doctrine, the
teachings of the Fathers, and to all oul
preconceived ideas. The question theT
recurs as to why we should assume a
burden alone which is now shared with
us by two other great powers? The
trouble is that there is always too much
private johbery mixed up with the man
agement of our connection with Ha
waiian affairs. If the terms of the
alleged treaty recently published, be
genuine, it is not difficult to discern
where the job comes in. 1t is good that
the assembling of Congress is not far off