The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-03-18
MR.. KINNEY AND THE BULLETIN
AGAIN.

bnTee quarters III the DuLelin OF the
18th inst, desperate effort is again
made to convict Mr. Kinney of being
a political turncoat and vacillator.
1t is impossible, of course, for the
public to know from which one OF
the Bulletins numerous editorial
contributors this final attack on Mr..
Kinney emanates. 1t is now too late
for the gentleman concerned to fur
nish the personal vindication which
he could have written better than
anyone for him. 1t remains for the
friends whom he has left behind to
perform that task, and not merely
his friends but for everyone who has
an interest in the preservation of
character from unjust attack. Still,
the vindication in this case might be
left to time and the natural instinct
of justice-an instinct which in most
men obliterates the harsh judgments
of partizanship, were it not for the
fact that the issue is really of a
quasi-public character. If the con-
illusions of our contemporary are cor
rect, then not merely Mr.. Kinney
but everyone whose political convic-
tions are akin to his must have been
guilty of gross inconsistency in sup
porting the Reform party during
the late campaign. This seems GER
tainly an absurd conclusion, but it is
the necessary implication of our
contemporaries whole column and
hall, of an article which wears the
delusive semblance of moderation.
The charges to the exposition of
which the Bulletin has devoted 80
much of its valuable space are as far
as we can gather briefly as follows.
Mr.. Kinney vlbrated between two
Numerically opposite positions.
1. Because, if Mr.. Kinney had de-
sired to make a record for consis-
tency, he would have made his battle
chiefly in the issue that he had been
so eager in urging the Ministry to
adopt.
2. Because he opposed the party
which had adopted a platform
comprising all the ideas and lines of
policy for which he himself had
stood.
3. Because he supported the Re
form party, although on January
18th, 1890, he said that the
foreigners who for thirty years had
controlled the government had been
drawn almost exclusively from the
class representing land and capital
rather than labor, and that this was
a grievance requiring the organiza-
ton Of party to correct.
4. Because he earnestly defended
a treaty which he had in the same
form, only few months earlier, de-
nounced.
Why? There was absolutely no
reason for attempting to force an
issue between the two parties on the
Chinese question.
Both parties had adopted a speci-
fic declaration on the subject, pro-
posing the same legislation. The OBJ
ject of the anti Chinese agitation
had been to force the Reform party
into an anti-Chinese policy, and if
possible to secure immediate legisla-
ton by the calling of an extra ses-
sion of the Legislature. The first
object had been attained, and it was
too late for the second. Even if the
National Reform party had had the
power and the intention to call i'm
mediately an extra session of the
Legislature, consistency would not
have required MIR. Kinney to sup
port them, because the party was
new one and had adopted prin-
ciples and formed connections which
Mr. Kinney did not approve. There
was absolutely no connection be-
tween that party and himself, be-
yond the fact that it included some
of his previous following. As a
matter of fact the Chinese question
was not an issue of the late cam
paign and was not discussed by the
speakers of either party. In the
light of these facts it is silly to pre-
tend that consistency required any
one whatever to make a prominent
matter of the Chinese question at
the late election.
But, the Bulletin contends Mr..
~