The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-01-24


tive Is the assumption of some.
Another answers, "Well, We would
have IA more thrifty population
Another still, "Ah! but you must care
for the Hawaiian first--the original
owner OF the country Each of these
statements deserves attention. Are
the mere Interests of the present pop
ulatlon or the prospective interest of
the future population to be most re-
garded? Are these, at any rate, an
tagOnistic? Is there not policy, or
rathera rule, which will apply equally
| 10 both? What is the guiding prin-
ciple? We believe that truly civil
| lied policy will in u few years be
! found the best for both. We are not
of those who believe that giving the
| native IA kuleana, or title 10 his piece
| of land was an injury, (as some did.
| We shall always believe il was BEN
| eft, and whatever tends 10 civiliza-
| ton is benefit.
| Now We propose to give some views
| OF the subject favorable To ann aXation.
No nation or people at the present
| day is alive or las hopes of life unless
| ii is making progress. Life is growth
change. Many have good reason to
| be dissatisfied that there is so little
| progress In JnlS nation.
The United States of America are
Il nation because they are organized
on principle, not because any one
race inhabit the land. Saxon and
| Celt, African, Teuton and Latin,
these all form one nation-the repre-
sentative nation of the human race.
To join that nation is not To die polit-
| ically; it is 10 live. 1t is to join in an
III nj hi. nj
Zation, Christianity and perfect man
hood. What principle is there here
at present to join different races?
Submission To the will of one man?
Is that a principle? So run the
thoughts of honest anneXationists.
Are they just, or not? They do not
deserve persecution, certainly.
True loyalty is to a people, and not
necessarily to its sovereign. | may
involve loyalty to sovereign; it al
ways will if that sovereign is loyal to
his people. But that is not monar-
chical theory of government, you will
say--it is republican, and no such
creed as that can be allowed in one
who takes any part in a monarchical
form of government.
We hold that every man is entitled
to share in the government of his
country as soon as he acknowledges
himself to be guided by principle, and
not by passion. The simple fact that
men have an intention of doing what
is right entities them to self-govern-
ment. We hold that every man has
an Unborn right to express what he
believes TO be truth. No man has q
right to base his conduct on what he
believes in his heart to be a sham, nor
to accept as true what he believes to
be false. Whatever then may be a
mans creed, he has his right in the
government of his own country.
Now we honestly put the inquiry to
each man who reads this magazine,
such as it is, and woman too, to be
answered to the PERSONS own con-
science: Are you supporting by word
and deed what you honestly believe?
The fundamental theory of all mon
archies-"The king can do no wrong"
and whatever privileges the father
has over the will of his fellow men
descend rightly by inheritance to his
son as much as the title to a piece of
land descends." Do you thoroughly
believe that, or do you accept it as a
piece of convenient fiction? If the
latter, is it for the sake of peace that
you do it, or bread and butter, or be-
cause your conscience tells you it is
right? Are fictions good things to
live by and swear by? Just answer
these questions fairly and frankly.
Some time it may be best for the
good of the people and the rulers, too,
that men should practically support
theories that they really do believe
with a sincere heart. We want sim
cere men that we may have live men,
and the highest type of men; and
what is the best way to get them?
Suppose we put in words-written
words-what some sensible people
will persist in thinking about. The
question of the expense of the govern
ment is an important one. The sum
total of government expenses is not
very high in proportion to the popu-
lation, but the proportion required for
the salaries of government officials is
high as compared with the eXpendi-
ture from the public purse on solid
land have right to ask themselves
whether their system of government
is not an uneoually expensive one,
have not we? If it is the opinion of
quiet practical business men that one
efficient man of sound sense and edu-
cation could do what four cabinet
officers are now generously paid for
doing this was in 1861, they have
right to say so: it is a benefit to the
people to have it said, and to be them
selves led to ask candidly whether it
is not so.
Another great objection to a dim
inutive, but high-titled governmental
ic lin fol ;ol,
everything is presented to those who
are brought up here, and moreover
the sort of ridiculous comparisons
that are apt to be made by strangers.
1t is belittIing to the mind, we say;
it is placing ourselves at disadvant-
age with others, to cap little petty
offices with high sounding titles. 1t
keeps the Hawaiians themselves chill
dren. Surprising we need small
body of military. Very well, sixty
or eighty soldiers may be, and are no.
thing out of the way. But why do
they need any other officer than SIM
ply a captain and his non commits
stoned subOrdinate5. The existence
of such offices here as colonel, major,
etc, only serves to confuse our young
peoples ideas of what such titles of
rank mean in civilized nations. Then
the rank of Governor on each separ-
ate island was well enough years ago,
but with all due Difference to the pres
ent incumbents, we must say that q
different title might be a higher and
more civilized one. 1t is holding on
to barbarism--all this fuss and
| feathers. Fuss and feathers must
| disappear when you come to real
work, at least our American neigh