The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-03-18

tai to have been and to be unduly
influential in the government of the
country to support the Reform
party in preference to its namesakei
Or to state the matter more defn-
itely still, can a man think the influ-
ence of capital too strong in the Re-
form party and yet IN spite of this
conviction give that party his
conscientious support!
This is question in which the
ADVERTISER has a special interest of
its own. 1t happens that we are very
strongly persuaded that the infu-
ence of capital has been too strong,
and that this element has had more
than its share of influence in the
councils of the Reform party. Is
such a conviction then inconsistent
with conscientious support of that
partyi In the case under discussion
the Bulletin simply assumes that it
was without offering a single proof
or advancing single argument to
substantiate such view.
This is certainly very loose think
ing and very loose writing even for
the columns of a daily paper.
The reasons why the ADVERTISER
in spite of its views on the relations
of capitol and labor, has supported
and continues to support, the Reform
party are briefly as follows:
a. An inner transformation is go
ing on in the Reform party, by which
it is becoming more popular, as
reference to the list of nominees will
prove.
a. The National Reform party is
not, either in its declaration of prin-
ciple, or in the personnel of its can
didates, the party of labor against
capital.
3D. No matter how much we may
deplore the excessive influence of
capital, intelligent sympathizers with
labor rarely belong to labor parties
because such parties are generally
controlled by political adventurers OF
demagogues.
In the above statement we of
course make no mention of the num-
erous positive reasons for our sup
port of the Reform party, Jour issue
of February 5th stated ten such),
but have confined ourselves to mega
tive considerations only.
But why multiply reasons? 1t is
absurd to contend that because we
believe party to be influenced by
capital one must necessarily with
draw ones support from it, and an
individual or newspaper which seri-
ously takes such ground is securely
perched on a pinnacle of folly be-
yond the reach of argument. There
we will leave our amiable contem
porary and pass to his fourth conten-
ton.
The difficulty with the fourth
charge against Mr.. Kinney is
that it borrows its facts from Mr..
Bush, whose methods of manufacture
are too well known to require any
comment here. 1t is sufficient to say
that Mr.. Kinney never denounced
any treaty which he subsequently,
defended. This whole contention
rests on the false statements in re-
gard to the Treaty, which were fully
exposed and refuted at the time,
though some members and some
journals of the National Reform
party prefer not to believe them.
Such is the showing against MIR.
Kinney. 1t consists of misrepresen-
tations, irrelevancies, conclusions
which have no perceptible relation
to their premises, and all the other
weapons from the srmory of the sop
hist. Perhaps our summary of the
argument does not do its subject full
justice. We can only say that it is
the best of which the Bulletins ar
ticle-an article utterly wanting in
logical continuity-would admit.