The Hawaiian gazette., 1891-11-03
Our Relations With the United
States.

Mr.. EDITOR: Sir, In these days OF the
actual paralysis and prospective ruin OF
our commercial and industrial condi-
tons, people are straining their eyes to
catch every beam of light that will rem
der the prospect less gloomy. 1t seems
to be admitted, both by the Press and
the people of this country, that if abso-
lutte ruin is to be avoided something
must be done"-that's about the sub
stance OF current comment. But what is
that Something" What is the remedy
for the ills, present and impending? In
such time, and for an answer to such a
question, is it not the right of the people
to look to and depend upon the Press?
And yet which OF the local journals has
offered a sound and comprehensive sug-
gestion as to our course in seeking such
remedy2
In your issue OF to-day (Oct. 20), in
connection with some comments on
the wisdom of making a national
display at the Columbian Exhibit
ton of 1898, you intimate, with a
vagueness and resource for evasion
quite admirable in themselves, that
the future good of Hawaii is to be found
only in "more intimate relations with
the United States" Is it unreasonable
in your readers to request the reasons for
this conclusion of yours, and the details
of the plan by which such increased in
timacy is to benefit Hawaii AS one of
your readers, permit me to ask how your
views, so expressed, can be supported?
What do you mean by "closer rela-
tions?" Is it some scheme by which
the last vestige of benefit left us under
the Reciprocity Treaty, the free admis-
sion OF our rice and the taxing OF other
foreign rice, is to be removed? | submit
that Uncle Sam has become altogether
too intimate" in his relations" with
us, when he sweeps away almost our
sole advantage under the treaty, while
quietly insisting that HIS advantages (of
placing his goods upon our markets duty
free, and maintaining his rights in Pearl
Harbor) shall be continuously enjoyed,
Just as though nothing had happened.
Verify, we have not profited by the in
creased intimacy" of our relations"
with Uncle Sam of late, and if that in
timacy is to be intensified land presum
ably in the same direction), what will We
have left after the next move on the
board? Perhaps we will have the priv
ilege of competing, In America, with
foreign rice, as well as with foreign sugar.
Seriously, what have the United States
to offer, for our advantage, upon the
formation of "closer relations ?? Is
anyone here insane enough 10 hope
for the extension to Hawaii
(while she remains, as now, foreign
state), of the prevailing sugar bounties
as paid to American producers? Such
an idea deem too preposterous for argu-
ment. The bounty system is already as
heavy as will hold together, with the
attempted addition of the product OF
foreign country, the scheme would dis
solve and justly so. But let not our
optimistic planters suppose that the
abolition, for any cause, OF the bounty
system, would be attended by the re-im-
position of sugar duties in the United
States. Free sugar has come to stay in
that republic.
l seriously suspect you, Mr.. Editor,
by the vague and covert phrase OF
.'closer relations" to mean either an
nexation or free trade. As to the former
| prefer to say nothing at present, be-
yond the expression OF hope that, If
such be your object you will soon find
the courage TO openly ayow it. As to
the merits or dement's of such plan ex-
press no opinion. But by free trade, let
me ask, have we not much to lose and
little to gain? What do We, or can we
produce in respectable quantities, not
now entitled to free entry into American
ports? If you answer, WOO" grant
that its free entry into America would
largely benefit at least three families OF
foreign extraction resident here, but
whom would it benefit outside OF those
families? Not that the benefit should be
rejected merely because OF its very
limited scope. But treaty revision
should proceed upon national and not
upon family lines. The greatest good to
the greatest number, you know, and
the mere fact that some families in Ha-
waii (even outside the wool producers
consider the greatest number" to be
No. does not seriously affect the utility
and soundness OF the above proposition.
What would We be expected to give in
exchange for such tree access to the
American markets? If the lines of the
treaty proposed by a majority OF the late
so called Reform Cabinet offer basis OF
speculation, We should be obliged to
give, first, free entry to ali American
goods, involving the jeopardy of the