The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-10-30

me ask, have we not much to lose and
little to gain? What do VIC, or can we
produce in respectable quantities, not
now entitled to free entry into American
ports? II you answer, "wool,' 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-
wall (even outside the wool producers)
consider the greatest number" to be
No. docs not seriously affect the utility
and soundness OF the above proposition.
What would We be expected to give IN
exchange for such free access to the
American markets? If the lines OF the
treaty proposed by majority OF the late
so-called Reform Cabinet offer basis OF
speculation, we should be obliged TO
| give, first, free entry to all American
goods, involving the jeopardy OF the
| national exchequer to the tune OF, say,
$3.50, 600 per year. (This sum is roughly
estimated and subject to correction by
"those clever statistical chaps") second,
| the disability to make any treaties, com
mercial or otherwise with other foreign
powers, except with the knowledge,
| ESQ easily construed into "consent') OF
Uncle Sam; third, The substantial per-
petuity of such condition by the grace OF
the clause forbidding any change or
abrogation of the treaty, except by the
mutual consent of the parties to the
compact; fourth, the conveyance in prac-
tical perpetuity to the United States of the
rights in Pearl Harbor which it now holds
for the life of the present reciprocity
treaty. Is it too much to assert that nc
self-respecting Hawaiian, whether ma
tive, naturalized or domiciled, could OF
would assent to either the second, third
or fourth bases above outlined?
1t is puerto to talk of finding substi-
tute for tn menaced sugar industry in
toothsome jellies, sweet pickles and
mountain hotels. They will not fill the
aching void. Ii present indications are
realized, how many sugar plantations
will Mr.. Thurston have in operation
here when he starts for the Worlds Col
umbian Exhibition in 1898, with his pic
ture of the Volcano and his glass Of
guava jelly? How would we be better
off with absolute free trade? | submit
that phrase as applied to Hawaii is de.
fusion. The sugar industry is and must
remain the sheet anchor of the country's
commercial prosperity. The ruin of that
industry will cause stagnat1on too wide
spread and all-pervading to be calmly
contemplated, even by those who, like
myself, believe that the "barons" do not
pay their just share of the taxes.
Now, Mr.. Editor, what is your pro
posed remedy for the present and threat
ened conditions, which you so discreetly
if not courageously have thus far con.
cealed under the phrase, so often quoted
of "closer relations with the United
States?" Do you advocate Fundamental
political changes? If SO, why not speak
your mind and show that at least one
journal in Honolulu besides Ka Leo is
free from the reproach of cowardice 81
directly (and, l had almost said justly
but will not) cast upon our island press
by the press of America? What is it tc
be that shall save us from impending
ruin? Is it Monarchy, or Republic? In
dependence, annexation, or vassalage?
CLARENCE w. ASHFORD.
October 20, 1891.