New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-11-08
CONCESSIONS TO HAWAII.

The presence in Washington of Commission
ers representing the Government OF Her Ha-
waiian Majesty engaged in an effort to induce
our Government to place Hawaii within the
operation of our sugar bounty system draws at
tention to the fact that our relations with this
interesting little kingdom are not as satisfactory
as they should be. The problems these Com
missioners have come here to discuss are highly
important. 1t is scarcely an exaggeration to say
that they involve the life of Hawaii and they
bear strongly upon American prestige IN the
Pacific. They ought to admit OF an easy solu-
ton, and if wise counsels prevail on both sides
they will 1t is not our fault that they were not
properly settled long ago. 1t is an open secret
that Mr.. Blaine negotiated treaty with the
late Minister Carter, which not only confirmed
to Hawaii all the extraordinary commercial ad-
vantages she has been enjoying under the
Treaty of 1875. but gave her many new ones,
the cnly condition being that the foreign rela-
tons Of the kingdom should be under the super
vision of the United States. 1t is known that
popular sentiment in the islands Overwhelmingly
favored the ratification of this treaty, and that
every member of King Kalakaua's Cabinet in
dorsed it with a single exception. This was the
open enemy of the United States. His infu-
ence, with that of the British Legation at Homo
lulu, supported by semi-official assurances from
Sir John Macdonald that Canada would lay a
cable from Vancouver to the Hawaiian capital,
were sufficient to induce the King to reject the
treaty. The result has been disastrous to Ha-
wall. Sir John did not lay the cable nor do any
of the other muniicent things he limited at. The
Mckinley Tariff went into effect without an
accompanying provision protecting Hawaiian
sugar interests, and the islands are in a sequen-
tial condition of financial distress.
1t is the hope Of the Commissioners to find
a complete and permanent cure for this state OF
affairs They ought to understand, therefore,
the real sentiments of the American people con-
corning Hawaii and our relations there. They
will not need to be told that, commercially speak
ing, the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 has been
for us losing bargain, and that there has al
ways existed in Congress a considerable body
who favored its termination. The obvious an
swer to this, of course, is that it was not ne
gotiated as profitable trade arrangement, but
that the motive on our part was chiefly political ;
in other words, we gave the Hawaiians special
and peculiar commercial advantages in our mar
kets for the purpose OF establishing such an al
lance as would make them our friends as
against, if necessary, the rest of the world.
This explanation of the treaty is the correct
one, and it has been of sufficient cogency with
our legislators to induce them to continue the
compact twice as long as by its provisions it was
to have effect. 1t has been in force not seven
but sixteen years, and notwithstanding the fact
that it has enabled us to export less than
$50 900, 600, as against S125,000,0 900, that
we have received in imports, duty free. Dur
ing all that time the Hawaiian sugar-planters
have received for their product or cents a
pound more than the sugar-growers Of Cuba
and Germany, and at the expense of our Gus
toms revenues they have built up an export
trade with us from less than one million year
to nearly thirteen That the United States
will be willing to continue this arrangement,
eacrificia though it be- or even to render it more
favorable to Hawaii, there can be little question.
But the criticisms so often made in Congress
that the objects we have in view in this treaty
are not by it secured, or even mentioned; that
the engagement on Hawaii's part not to offend
us by foreign entangl ements conflicting with
our interests is a purely sentimental one; and
that the treaty binds her. indeed, to absolutely
nothing, while it clearly expresses our obliga-
ton, is true criticism, and one that was sharply
enforced by the Kings conduct when we sought
to induce him to define his position more clear
ly. The long and the short of the matter is
this-if our sacrifices in the interest of Hawaiian
prosperity do mean that the kingdom will stand
with us in emergencies, it is well to have the
treaty say so. If they do not there is no reason
why we should continue to make them.
The Hawaiians ought to appreciate their posi-
ton They are dependent on the United States,
politically as well as commercially not because
the American people wish to exercise authority
over them-for nothing is further from Ameri-
can pocy-but because geography and the
colonial aspirations of Europe make them so.
1t is a. remote from cur plans to-day to annex
Hawaii or to control her internal administration
as it was when under our protection the king
dom was established. This situation will con-
tinue indefinitely, and will carry over to Hawaii
all the blessings of enterprise and independence
we ourselves enjoy if the Hawaiians are as
mindful of our interests as we have been and
will be of theirs