Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1893-02-24
HAWAIIAN MATTERS
The PRESENT REVOLUTION is DUE
TO RECIPROCITY.

The revolution in Hawaii is not a
moral, religious or political one, but a
purely business speculation brought
about by a gang of Americans who
during the last Is years have flched
about $50, 600, 900 from their own coun-
trymen by means of our reciprocity
dicker with Hawaii, and now that this
dicker is worthless to them, they propose
to annex the islands to this country that
they may by means of the sugar bounty
clause begin again to extort So, 200, 600
or $6,000,000 yearly from their fellow
citizens. This is the key to the whole
situation.
In 1877 our reciprocity treaty went into
effect with Hawaii. This treaty admit
ted our agricultural and most of our
manufactured products into Hawaii,
and Hawaiian sugar, rice, etc., free into
the United States The treaty has been
beneficial to the commercial interests Of
Hawaii, but a curse to our own COM
merce and citizens, except to Claus
Spreckels and the few others fortunate
enough to take advantage Of the situa-
ton. To these men it has been a bonan-
"a. The wealth that they have sub
tracted from Americans has enabled
them to become the possessors Of two
thirds or three-fourths of an island esti-
mated to be worth $40, 900; to own
the soil, and therefore practically the
labor and bodies of the 10000 popula-
ton, and to dictate who shall govern
and how they shall govern. The whole
situation well illustrates the evils of
special legislation. The evils in this case
are the depriving Of our government Of
big revenue, which had to be supplied
from legitimate industry and trade; the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Of the few at the ex-
pense of the many; entangling alliances
with foreign nations; revolution and
perhaps war. In an excellent article on
"Reciprocity and the Farmer" in The
North American Review for April 1892,
the Hon. Hilary A. Herbert, chairman
Of the committee on naval affairs, clear
ly shows these effects. He says:
"The actual results of the Hawaiian
treaty for Is years are before US, from
1877, when it took effect, to 1889 inclu-
sive, carefully compiled by Mr.. S. G.
Brock, government statistician, in an Of
fetal report, June 20, 1890.
under stimulus Of the treaty our i'm
ports from these islands increased rapid
ly. In 1875, the year before it took eff
feet, such imports were 81, 376, 681. In
1889 they amounted to $12,847, TAO. Ex-
ports also increased. In 1876 our ex-
ports to these islands were 1924, 267. In
1889 they footed up 1886, 040. This is
the bright side of the picture, and it is
painted in glowing colors by Mr.. Claus
Spreckels in The North American Re-
view for March, 1891, where he highly
extols the wise and farseeing policy en-
bodied in the Hawaiian treaty. No one
knew better than Mr.. Spreckels the cost
at which the taxpayers Of the United
States had maintained that treaty, for
much of that cost had gone into his own
pockets as profits upon sugar. AS tc
thatsside of the question he was indus
triously silent. But Mr.. Brock gives us
the information, page 8 of his report,
thus:
"If the merchandise admitted free
under the treaty had paid the duty levied
upon the similar goods imported from
other countries, the duty would have
amounted to $5,452, 311.97 for the fiscal
year 1889, and to $43, 1893, 979 for the IS
years ending with that year, Or since the
reciprocity treaty has been in force
"This sum, $43, sos, 978, our consumers
paid to the growers of Hawaiian sugar,
rice, ETC., as premiums on their prod
ucts." Mr.. Herbert then shows that the
consumers got no benefit from the re-
moval Of the duty on sugar imported from
Hawaii, because Hawaii furnishes only
about one-tenth of our imported sugar.
The importers of this sugar have not had
to pay duty that has averaged 2.06
cents per pound on all other sugar; they
have held free pass" to our markets.
But this free sugar has not lowered the
price of sugar, for the price of an article
in any market is determined by the cost
of the dearest article that sells in compe
tition with other articles, and as the cost
of nine-tenths of our sugar in our markets
includes the duty Hawaiian sugar sells
at the same price as if it, too, had paid
duty. The benefits of such free sugar 90
to importers and not to consumers. Mr..
Herbert says: 1.-The tables collated in
Mr.. Brooks report, page 81, corroborate
this reasoning and show that the people
of the Pacific coast did not save penny
in the price of their sugar by reason of
the treaty. Every dollar of the $43 ,000,-
900 of taxes released on Hawaiian sugar
went into the pockets of the producers of
that article, Mr.. Claus Spreckels and
others. And SO it would have been if the
sugar imported free of duty had amount
ed to nine-tenths instead of one-tenth of
our total imports. This brings us to see
clearly that if we impose an import tax
on sugar and rely to any appreciate ex-
tent on taxed sugars to complete our
supply no exceptions in favor of par
ticular countries, giving them free &C
cess to our markets, will avail to reduce
the price of the product of these favored
countries in the American market below
the price of the tax paid article.
st will be seen that we have not taken
the trouble to ascertain the relatively
pitiful sum of duties released to our peo-
pie by the Hawaiians. We simply put
against our actual losses in release of du-
ties the full values of all our exports.
Balancing the account for Is years and
counting in those exports that would
have gone to the islands without any
treaty, as well as those that went because
of it, the sum total of all our exports for
this period is $35, SIC, sol. Deducting this
sum from 81 }S9S, 97S of duties released,