The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-03-13

|
brought to successful issue, which
is claimed to have been the case
when the reform Party through
the Ministry" had "pledged itself
unequivocally to carry out the spcci-
ilc legislation which had been ask
ed" As n matter of fact, Mr..
Kinney went in TO compel the Minis
try TO call special session of the
Legislature to pass the "spccilic |
legislation through its first stage.
He told foreigners and natives that
they should not allow themselves to
be fooled with anything less than
such special session. The Misis-
try were compelled to fool Mr.. Kim
ney and his supporters and sympa-
thizers, because after secret can
vass of their supporters they found
they could not trust the Reform
Party with the desired measure
before the elections. But although
Mr.. Kinney thus failed in his main
object, he is entitled to credit for
cxtorting from the Cabinet declar-
alton of policy on the question. lie
cannot deny, however, that he re-
garded the result as being very far
| from success.
If, now, Mr.. Kinney had desired
to make q record of consistency, we
should have found him, when he
entered the election campaign, max
ing his battle chiefly on the issue
that he had been so eager in urging
the Ministry TO adopt. This was TO
be expected because Mr.. kinney
had often and openly asserted his
belief that if the Ministry took up
with anti-Chinese sentiments they
would be "knifed'' by the Reform
planters and Queen street. Instead
of the agitator resuming his agita-
ton on the higher plane to which
the Cabinet had elevated it, how
ever, we find him iaking the stump
and running campaign sheet on an
entirely different subject. For
aught that escaped his tongue or
pen during the contest, the people
might have slept under delusion
that Chinese formed the most dcsir-
able class of immigrants.
SO far, then, Mr.. Kinncy's boasted
consistency does not appear above
the surface of the muddy pool. He
was not talking constitutional amend
ment for Chinese restriction at all,
but treaty revision for the pretended
purpose of averting European in
vasion. AS, however, he had taken
decided stand on the treaty matter
previous to the campaign, perhaps
this is where we are to look for the
proof of his consistency. Let us
see. When the proposed treaty re-
vision was divulged, Mr.. Kinney's
Indignation could scarcely be res
trained within temperate bounds
He with many others regarded it as
a scheme to afford protection o
foreign bayonets for clique here il
any measures they might choose tt
, force on the country. Then in the
, campaign we find Mr.. Kinney divid
, ing his energies between two mail
points. First, in abuse of the for
elgn branch of the National Reform
Party for having won the native as
sociation to cooperation with then
, in platform that comprised all th
, ideas and lines of policy for whic
!, he himself was so intensely exer
cised a few weeks previously. Sec
ondly, in ringing the changes on tn
q lying issue raised by the Reforl
i Party in respect to the treaty wit
the United States.
{, To show that no injustice is don
,r to Mr.. Kinney, in regard to the frs
d point mentioned, we shall quote hi
% own words. In letter appearin
" in the BULLETiN of Jan. II, 1873!
II Mr.. Kinney said: "But what
# often mistaken for anti-missionar
v animus, and too often mixed Il
is with it, is not intended as such, BIT
i. is a genuine political grievance, an
al requires the organization of part
Is TO correct, namely, the fact that I'll
n foreigners, who have for the pa'
Y, thirty years controlled the Cover
ne ment and the judiciary, have con
Mt almost exclusively from among Il
class representing land and capt.
rather than labor" When Nj
Kinney wrote those words he belle