The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-04-08
DISCUSSING TREATY MATTERS.
A Meeting of the Cabinet and Citizens
at the Foreign ONCE.

Cabinet Ministers by invitation, at the
Foreign Office, to talk over Treaty mat
tiers. Those present were Their Excel
lences iona. Austin, Minister OF Foreign
Affairs; L. A. Thurston, Minister of In
terror; S.MDamon, Minister of Finance,
and c. W. Ashford, Attorney-General;
Hons. c. r. Bishop, P. Isenberg, W. 6.
Irwin, Sam. Parker, J. B. Anterior, H.
P. Baldwin, John NJ Horner, E. G.
Macfarlane, and A Marques; Messrs.
F. 4. Schaefer, Robert Halstead, Theo
H. Davies, James B. Castle, A. Young,
Z. D. Tenney, W a. Bowen, B. F. Dill
lingham, c. Bolte, Jas. W. Colville, and
c. NJ Cooke.
Minister Austin explained the object
OF the meeting. They had been asked
10 come in at the request of his col
leagues, to talk over our treaty relations
with the United States. When Mr..
Carter Minister to Washington was
here he was instructed 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 having seen Mr..
Blaine reports that he thinks the United
States would be willing to entertain pro-
posals If we are willing to make them.
Mr.. Austin here read the draft of treaty
sent to Washington 1t had been sug-
gested recently that an effort be made to
negotiate with the United States on the
basis Of this draft, with the omission of
the fourth article which binds this coun-
try TO make no treaty with any other
country without the knowledge of the
United States. He would like to hear
the opinions of any gentleman present
on the question.
Mr.. James 3. Castle read letter he
had sent TO the Minister, which re-
viewed the history of the treaty in its
different phases. He considered it the
duty of this country TO at once make an
effort to secure a revision Of the treaty.
II would give US all the advantages of
annexation with the opportunities OF in
dependence. There was no assurance at
present OF the permanence OF existing
treaty relations with the United States.
Hon. J B. Atherton as an American
citizen, in one respect believed in closer
relations with the United States, not
withstanding he was not an annexation
list in any manner. Having had CONVEX
sations with Americans all the way from
San Francisco to Boston, he believed
that there was no sentiment in favor OF
annexation in that country. be would
be surprised if such treaty as that pro-
posed could be made should it come
up before Congress, but he believed that
the prosperity of Hawaii would be en-
HANGED if we could get such treaty. 1t
would be better for the natives, it would
settle matters to the satisfaction OF the
anti-Chinese element. He could not see
from what lad been written, or from his
own knowledge, that there was any
thought of any interference with the in
dependence of this country.
Mr.. Theo. II, Davies did not think he
was prepared to discuss the treaty at
present, especially if they were to import
into the discussion Mr.. Atherton's con-
versations from San Francisco to Boston.
Minister Austin said it had been sug-
gested that they might propose treaty
leaving out Article 4 and it was for the
discussion of that question that they had
invited the conference
Minister Thurston said two questions
could be propounded categorically. Is
il desirable that negotiations be lnltl-
ated on the basis of the first draft with
Article included? If not, should they
make an attempt to secure the second
measure? If Article 4 be eliminated,
making 1t a mere matter of dollars and
cents, what are the advantages to be de-
rived from a revised treaty? One objec-
ton heard was that it was not advisable
10 negotiate a new treaty at present, be-
cause the tendency in the United States
appeared to be toward throwing off the
sugar duties entirely, therefore we are
not safe in going on to negotiate on the
basis of the present treaty. Without
getting entire free trade and the inser-
ton of the proposed bounty clause it
was held that we should not proceed. A
second argument is that even if the
American sugar duties be not abolished,
the chances are strong that at an early
date the United States will negotiate
treaties with Mexico and Central and
South American republics, putting those
countries on the same level with us with
the practical effect of destroying all our
special advantages from reciprocity. In
such case should we hold ourselves
ready to negotiate with other countries,
for instance, Canada? So that the ques-
ton they were asked to express their
opinions on would be whether the Gov
eminent should negotiate on the first
project OF the second one, and, if they
decided in favor of the second, whether
they should proceed with negotiations
Immediately.
Hon. ]. VI. Horner thought that under
the terms OF the proposed treaty, in case
of losing the advantages of reciprocity
by similar favors being granted other
countries, we have the liberty OF going
elsewhere. Ii the productions of those
southern countries should overrun the
United States, they would soon overrun
Canada also, leaving no resource of re-
lief in that quarter. His opinions ran
with those read by Mr.. Castle, but at
the same time he saw no particular good
in putting in Article f. The United
States is not alone protecting US, for the
other Powers are holding protecting
hands over US, and if that article should
be stricken out we should still be pro-
tected, He did not see why that should
ha loft in