The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-04-01
the RECIPROCITY TREATY.
Conference OF the Cabinet. LegisiR.
tors and Capitalists.

t'' HtpDlIullbUS lpl u rev lSlDl Oi tllt
reciprocity treaty with the United
States. Present: Their Exrcllcn.
cies, J.. A. Thur,ton, Minister of
Interior; iona. Austin, Minister OF
Foreign Affairs =. NJ. Damon, Min.
istcr of Finance, and G. W. Ash
ford, Attorney.Grneral; Hons. &.
r. Bishop, p. Isrnherg, w. G.. IT.
win, Sam Parker. j. b. Anterior,
II. =. Baldwin, John NJ. Horner, +.
&. Maciarlane, and A. Marques
Messrs. +. a. Schaefer, Robt. Hal
stead, Thco. II. Davies, Jas. b.
Castle, A. Young, T.. y. Tcnncy,
W. A. Bowen, Il. +. Dillingham;, {.
Bolte, Jas. W. Colvillc, and G. NJ.
Cooke.
Mr.. Austin opened proceedings
with explanatory remarks. lie had
asked them to come in at the request
of his colleagues, TO tall; over our
treaty relations with the United
States. When Mr.. Carter Minister
to Washington) was here hr was in.
s,rnctcd to inquire whether the
United States would be disposed to
agree to an extension Of relations on
the basis of treaty protocols which
he took with him. Mr.. Carter hav.
ing seen Mr.. Blaine reports that he
thinks the United States would be
willing to entertain proposals if we
"a \
Austin here read the draft OF treaty
sent to Washington. 1t had been
suggested recently that an effort he
made to negotiate with the United
States on the basis Of this draft,
with the omission of the fourth
article which binds this country to
make no treaty with any other coun-
try without the knowledge of the
United States. lie would like to
hear the opinions of any gentleman
present Oh the question. "A letter
had been received from gentleman
whom he saw present (Mr. Castle),
who perhaps would like tc read tho
letter or express his views otherwise.
Mr.. j. Is. Castle produced and
read the letter in question. lie
considered it the duty of this coun-
try to at once make an effort TO
secure II revision of the treaty. 1t
would give us all the advantages of
annexation with the opportunities of
independence. There was no as
surancc at present of the perma-
hence of existing treaty relations
with the United States. The letter
reviewed the history of the treaty in
its different phases.
Hon. II. =. Baldwin suggested
that the Ministers ought to express
their own views.
Hon. j. Is. Atherton had his own
thoughts on the matter. Being an
American citizen in one respect, he
believed in closer relations with the
United States, Notwithstanding he
was not an anneXationist in any
manner. Having had conversations
with Americans all the way from
San Francisco to Boston, he believ-
cd that there was no sentiment in
favor of annexation in that country.
He would be surprised il such a
treaty as that proposed could be
made should it como up before Con-
grcss, hut he believed that the pros
perity of Hawaii would be enhanced
if we could get such treaty. 1t
would be better for the natives, it
would settle matters to the satisfac-
ton of the anti.Chinese element.
He could not see from what had
been written, or from his own know
ledge, that there was any thought
Of any interference with the indie
pendcnce of this country.
Mr.. Theo. ii. Davies did not I'M.
dcrstand from what had been heard
whether what had been read was
what the Cabinet desired.
Mr.. Austin said that the first draft
of treaty was the one representing
the views of the Cabinet Al
present there was not entire unani.
nifty in the Cabinet with regard To
the matter. His own opinion was
that the treaty presented to Mr..
Carter was the best one for the
country.
Mr.. Davies did not think he was
prepared to discuss the treaty a,
present, especially if they were tc
import into the discussion Mr.
Atherton's conversations from Sar
Francisco to Boston.
Mr.. Austin-It has been suggest
ed that we might propose a treaty
leaving out Article 4, and it is fol-
the discussion of that question tina
We have invited this conference.
Mr.. Thurston intimated mode o.
bringing the matter to head. Two
questions could be propoundcd cate
gorically. Is it desirable that nego
tiatons be initiated on the basis o.
the first draft with Article includ
cd? If not, should they make al
attempt to secure the second meas
ure? If Article be eliminated
making it q mere matter of dollars
and cents, what are the advantage
TO be derived from Il revised treaty
One objection heard was that it wa
not advisable to negotiate ne,
treaty at present, because the ten
dcncy in the United States appcare,
to be toward throwing off the suga