The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-03-18

he will take but one drink at home to
ten in a saloon. The Gothenberg Sys-
tenn takes away these special and in
ticing features. The saloons are con-
trolled by companies who turn over
their profits TO the Government, and the
people are indirectly benefited thereby.
In South Carolina the Government
controls and sells, and il Days where
yer it may be bought the cheapest. The
liquor is always pure and is sold only
| in bottles and at fixed prices. That
State is not running the liquor business
on fine lines; there is no sentiment be-
hind it, for l doubt if there are many
people south Of Mason and Dixon's line
who do not like little Kentucky whis
ky. Whether we shall take up the same
law here is a grave question to answer.
l for one say No! We are in a transitory
state, with factions and cliques. There
never was until three years ago sin
gle question leading up to the welfare
of the people upon which the public
stood shoulder to shoulder. That ques-
| tion upon which we stand so united is
| annexation.
| Until that is accomplished nothing
else should be considered. The liquor
question and some other measures are
| trivial compared with the one great
aim. The discussion of the minor mat
| ters creates feelings akin to strife.
| THE trouble in South Carolina was
| not between the missionaries and any
other class of people; it was between all
| classes, in politics and out. The for
mer friends of the Governor were then
among the strongest opponents Of the
| measure and the battle is not ended
yet.
If the Legislature should pass such
law here, and confiscate the property
of the liquor men, it would cause an eX-
citement that would border on revo-
luton, and while that was going on we
could not stick together on any one is
| sue. Annexation would be lost sight Of
l believe that in time we will have to
adopt some plan to regulate, not wipe
out, the liquor business; but 1 hope the
! legislature will not bother with it while
| there are important matters to be con-
sidered
Regarding the opium bill my friends
say l am a hereto because | have not
taken sides with the leaders in an eff
fort to kill the opium bill. 1t has been
published all over the world that opium
was the cause of the overthrow of the
monarchy. That is not so. That it was
one of the causes believe, but so far as
am concerned it was very small.
Il did not vote against the bill in
1892, nor do 1 feel today that it is not
the best thing for the country. The
complaint in 1893 was not so much
against the passage of the opium bill,
but the manner of passing it. Men who
had pledged themselves to stand with
us and by us were seen coming from the
Palace with leis around their necks, |
and voted for the passage of the bill. |
Some people thought then, and do now,
that the passage of such an act was
murderous.
Il do not think the financial side of |
the opium subject should be considered. |
Opium is an unmitigated evil anywhere, |
and compared with liquor it was an !
undivided evil. Liquor has always been |
used by our race, but there has never |
been use of opium that does not work
harm. 1t is a death-dealing evil that |
should not be kept on.
Does prohibition prohibit?' This
is not new question. Under license
the use of the drug increased. Those of
you who were here will remember how
young men who began the use of the
drug became total physical wrecks
Those who are not wrecks today are
dead from the effects of it's use. There
are men here who say: There's no use
trying to save the Kanakas; they are
going to the devil anyhow; give them
the same chance as the whites and let
them get on if they can
But this is not the way to look at
it. The Government must face things
as they are. We have taken it upon our
selves, the task of conducting the af-
fairs of Government, and it is as much
part of those duties to look after the
Hawaiian as if he was a younger
brother
Prohibition does prohibit, to a GER
tain extent; the police records show it
and you seldom find Kanaka arrested
for smoking opium or having 1t in his
possession. 1t is only those who have
the habit who take the risk.
"a stricter law should be made and a
higher penalty fixed for the crime. The
fine for having opium in possession
should be 5000, with the option given
to the culprit of leaving the country,
never to return. In that way from 500
to 1000 fiends would be out Of the cOun
try in a year. In this way the demand
for opium would decrease, and the sup
ply which tempts the smuggler would
not be required. There never was an
opium f1end in Jail who earned his
board, and that is only Is cents a day.
80 much as against license. There is
such a large profit in opium that there
is no use trying to keep it out, and
there is too much temptation to the
forty-dollar policeman or the hundred
dollar customs guard to expect them to
assist in keeping it out. They need not
be bribed to pass opium that they know
is on vessel; they simply take a cou-
pie OF hundred dollars to look the other
way.
Continued on page 81