The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-10-17

lyon, as MI Ihurston declared pub
licly one time, to gain political adj
vantage. Yet now the Advertiser
whines because the Minister il gross
ly and unwarrantably abused, refused
to subsidise it'll
"The Advertiser and the Hawai-
ian Gazette Company managed to
get along without government aid
under the monarchy" says the Ad-
vertiser. A more deliberate false
hood was never put into print.
From July l, 1887, to nearly July |,
1890, the Advertiser and Gazette
newspaper and printing branches
had almost complete monopoly of
all the Government patronage in
those lines, Its owners had repre-
sentative in the Reform Legislature,
whose first act was to secure the
passage of a motion to have every
bill, however simple or silly, printed
on its introduction. In the previous
unregenerate days, when the "pull"
for printing was in other hands, it
was the practice to have only bills
of some complexity or considerable
Importance printed. Yet in those
more olden times the Legislature
did not give the Supreme Conrt one
tenth of the fun of bowling over un-
constitutional acts and parts Of acts
as resulted from the amateur legis-
lation of 1887 and 1888. There was
no competition in Legislative or exc
cutive printing, excepting under the
law compelling call for tenders for
any public service to cost $500 or
over, until the National Reform
Cabinet took Office in 1890. Legis-
lative printing was then given over
to competition and the Hawaiian
Gazette Company, with view to
getting the monopoly with its large
aggregate Of small profits, put in a
bid at exactly one-half of the price
it had been getting from its virtual
monopoly without competition un-
der the Reform regime. From that
time on, 'under the monarchy" it is
equally false that the Gazette con-
cern managed to get along without
government aid" On the contrary,
it is safe to say that the Gazette
corporation raked in many more
times the amount of money from the
treasury than any other printing
and publishing house in the coun-
try. We are ready to appeal to the
public accounts for proof. That
concern, it must be remembered all
the while, has had from far back in
the monarchy monopoly of the
patronage of the Judiciary depart
ment.
Here is characteristic piece of
boasting from this mornings scream
in the Advertiser: "The Advertiser
has a general bid for government
advertising, and when it's services
are needed the government becomes
it's patron. Our prices are fixed, and
special bids have never been made
to cut under other newspapers. :"
The last sentence is proved false by
recent instance-the publication
of the financial returns for the quar-
ter ending June 30. In that instance
the three daily papers were asked to
make bids. The Advertisers bid
was the highest, the BULLETINS the
lowest, while the Stars came in be-
tween. Learning that the Star was
below it, the Advertiser put in a
second bid, which "cut under" the
Star, and it received the job at 6
, price away above that of the BULLE
TIN. As to its general bid for gov
ernment advertising," the Advertiser
| refers to price it put on advertise
5 ments given by Government that il
t opposed. This paper gave an instance
| last year in which the Gazette com
} pany charged twice as much as the
: BULLETIN for government notice il
Y the Advertiser, and the same for its
> insertion in the Hawaiian weekly
, Kuokoa, which was acquired by il
S solely as tentacle to grasp SC
. much more public money. Wha
i, we maintain is that the Advertiser il
3 drawing for each of its, from one tt
: three columns day of "By Author
r ity" advertising from five to tel
S times as much as it realizes from an,
: single column of commercial adver
: tising in it's pages. This statemen
the Advertiser is challenged to dis
a prove. While the BULLETIN had tn
n general patronage of the Govern
|. ment, it charged for official adver
@ tising the same rate as were charged
r the commercial community. This
+" too, Notwithstanding that the "B
r Authority" column was given tn
,,A,t ,~1s,f,1n - II