The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-04-08

and putting the products of both ma
tions on the same basis. Our reasons
are as follows:
1. The treaty should be with the
United States, simply because they
are, and must long remain, incom-
parably our best market. Neither
Canada nor any other country can
offer us the facilities of market
near at hand. We trade, substantl-
ally, not with the United States, but
with the Pacific Coast. Our products
are sold there, our sugar is re1ned
there, to large extent we buy there
1t is preposterous to imagine that we
can find as good a market anywhere
else.
2. The United States are the only
nation which has showed any dis
position to make us favorable con-
cessions. The attitude of that
power has been one of unbroken
friendliness for sixty years. This
has been demonstrated too often to
need more than the briefest mention
now. No one probably is wild
enough to suppose that we can nego-
tiate anywhere else so favorable a
treaty as we are likely to get at Wash
ington. If we have any wisdom we will
build on experience, and look TO the
country from which we have drawn
not merely the chief portion of our
civilization and our political forms,
but our commercial prosperity as
well, for the continuation and perpe-
tuation of the same blessings.
These are surely sufficient reasons
for negotiating with the United
States, if we negotiate at all. But
why do so at all, Rip Van Winkle
may ask-the reasons are so clear
that none but twenty years sleeper
could ask for them.
The most obdurate opponent will
probably admit that our prosperity
is chiefly dependent on our tariff
relations with the United States.
We respectfully call the attention of
the entire Rip Van Winkle genus
to the following facts:
1. Our Reciprocity Treaty termin-
ates in 1894, and the prospects of the
renewal are undeniably not promis
ing. This is obvious to the most
rosy hued optimism.
2. Even if we keep our treaty its
uselessness may become NIL, because
the American duty on sugar may be
heavily reduced or wiped out alto
gether, with the consequence to us
of widespread ruin and disaster.
3. 1t is folly to fold the hands and
sit idle, merely because one happens
to believe that the treaty will be re-
newed, or that the tariff will not be
touched. Perhaps the treaty may
be renewed. Perhaps the duty
may escape the levelling knife, so is
safe to assume so much? When a
merchant insures does he do so be-
cause he believes his warehouses
will be burned or his ships suffer
wreck? What we say is that we
ought to insure, to insure without
lose of time, with the only company
which is in position to protect us
from commercial disaster, the United
States.
4. The sugar interests of the
United States taking growers and
refners together are very heavy
The principle of protection has die
tated the commercial policy OF our
great neighbor for a half century.
The principle may be waning, but it
is still strong, and is likely to re-
main so for many years. 1t is highly
improbable that Congress will deal a
really fatal blow to the sugar in
terest of the country. If then we
can negotiate treaty by which our
sugar is placed on the same basis as
the American, we shall be as secure
against financial disaster as the ma
ture of the situation will admit.
These are some of the reasons why
we ought, if we care for our pockets,