The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1905, 1897-08-26
Continued from 1st page.)

dlnereut natlonalltieS ana sixty
millionairesl
But these Hawaiian millionaires
or sugar kings as they are sometimes
called, are not absolutely unknown
to the American Government Some
years ago they obtained from us
treaty whereby Hawaiian sugar
that is to say, their sugar-came
into this country duty free, while
the sugars of all other peoples paid
duties. These duties, so RENTED
on Hawaiian sugar, amounted in
round numbers to $60,000,000-a
million per capita for each million
aire-when Republican Congress
put sugar upon the free list, and, in
lieu Of protection, substituted direct
bounties to be given to American
gar-growers. 1t was then speedily
discovered in Hawaii, that annexa
ton was the direct route to the Am
erican sugar-bounty system. That
system has now gone by the board,
and the financial necessities OF the
time have compelled us to restore
the duties on sugar; aud all students
of finance, such as Mr.. David A.
Wells, regard sugar as one OF the
articles OF importation best able to
bear an import tax-as one which
cannot be struggled in, as one which
cannot evade the revenue, as one
which enters into general consump-
ton, etc, etc. So it is unlikely that
a tariff on sugar will continue for
many years to come.
The Hawaiian millionaires, how
ever, have not been caught mapping.
Before the sugar duties were defn
itively established by Congress, the
treaty Of annexation was negotiated
and signed and sent to the Senate
for ratification. Under the new tar
if, it is computed that the duties on
Hawaiian sugar, if it should be
made to pay duties, would amount
to from SS,0O0,OO0 to $12,000,00O
year In other words, the present
Administration, with its eyes open
or shut,-probably with them shut
is binding the Government to pay
bounties, amounting to at least
$S,000,000 year, upon Hawaiian
sugar, to these sixty Hawaiian mil
lionaires. Can the American sugar
industry stsnd up against such
favoritism as that? Can the Secre-
tary Of Agriculture fight success
fully for homegrown sugar against
such odds as these2
We observe that Count Okuma,
the Japanese Minister of Foreign
Affairs, who seems to know as much
about Hawaii and American sugar
culture as the present Administra
ton has just brought into view the
unpleasant facts that of the S,400
white people proper in Hawaii only
5000 or thereabout--men, women
and cbildren-are Americans, while
the number Of persons in America
engaged in the culture of cane, beet,
sorghum, and other sugar is 10000.
The japanese statesman perceives
clearly the effects OF annexation; so
clearly that he can ascribe but one
motive to the present Administra-
ton. He says, in an explanatory
way, that duty on Hawaiian sugar
will, Of course, protect 10000 Amer
lean sugar-producers, but that it
would be at the expense Of the vast
body of consumers in America; and
therefore it lie, he infers, that we are
trying to avoid that calamity by
means of annexation" 1t takes
ones breath away to hear protec'
ton to an infant industry spoken Of
as calamity" and to be told that
the present Administration is trying
to evade the calamity" by throwing
the loss upon 10000 American
sugar producers. This supposition
of bad faith we do not countenance.
The trouble is that the millionaires