The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-04-25
THE TRUST, NOT HAWAII.

| Inc ldSJ SHuS1O6 Ou LIE EcCIpIOCIIy
treaty in the San Francisco Chronicle
indicates clearly that our California
contemporary has launched forth into
a campaign to do what it can to injure
our trade relations with the United
States and, if possible, TO finally educate
its constituents to an open opposition
to the continuance OF the treaty. The
arguments advanced by the Chronicle
are entirely unworthy of such a sup
| posedly able journal, and tend to a
complete Misrepresentation of the
friendly attitude of the merchants of
this country. While we shall give a
more detailed attention to the state
ments made by the Chronicle, there
are certain glazing errors made in the
course of its attack upon this country
that are Immediately apparent to any
person who will take the time to run
over the facts and figures given in the
report of our customs department.
The Chronicle says that before the
treaty was made San Francisco was
promised all kinds of prosperity in con-
sequence of increased trade with Ha-
wall, also that San Francisco sugar was
to be cheaper. 1t is claimed that the
prosperity has not been forthcoming
and that the people of California pay
as much for their sugar as they ever
did.
We have not the figures at hand
showing what proportion of our inn
ports come from San Francisco, but if |
the Pacific Coast does not profit by
Hawaiian trade we would like to know
what section of this mundane spheroid |
does. Does it amount to nothing that |
72.14 per cent. of the merchandise |
Pacific Coast ports? If California peo-
pie have to pay as much for their sugar
as New York citizens, the Chronicle
must look nearer home than Hawaii to
the evil. If the United States
will allow refined sugars to enter it's
ports free of duty we do not doubt that
Hawaii can give our friends across the
water few points in cheaper sugar
for the common people"
Again the Chronicle claims that the
sugar men who govern the islands
oppose reciprocity with American ex-
porters largely for their private gain
as partners in Honolulu commission
houses We have no hesitancy in pro-
that statement as Absolutely
false. Could vote of the sugar men"
and the Hawaiian merchants be taken
oday up on the reciprocity treaty, there
would be an overwhelming majority in
favor of absolute free trade with the
United States. The principal trouble
with a good many people of this coun-
,ry seems to be that they are afraid
o reconsider the reciprocity treaty for
ear our eVer-present enemies in the
United States would com bine forces and
eize upon the opportunity to put an
nd to the treaty. Should the United
states open negotiations with a view
o obtaining more liberal terms from
laval, we do not consider that any Q
pposition would be experienced from o
his end of the line.
So far as the price of sugar to Califor-
ia consumers and the the shipment of +
hawaiian sugars around the Horn is :
Oncerned there is not an item in the
hronicle's whole tale of woe that can
OF be remedied by the Sugar Trust, an
rganization born in and carefully 4
ursed by the United States. We are L
lformed that there is an impression
nong some members Of Congress that =.
lie sugar trust controls the Hawaiian D
Glands. We will not attempt dis ii
lssion Of this proposition at this time,
1T we believe that this impression {
i'll be found to be at the bottom of
e Chronicles attack upon this coun-
Y. We would suggest, however, that
our friends want cheaper refined
gar and less raw sugar shipped
ound the Horn they will do we'll to
lprove the conditions in their own
untry, break the power of monopoly
hich is an American institution be-
re wandering to these islands to make
Ouble.
REFUNDING.