The San Francisco call., 1897-10-03

can labor employed is absolute nonsense.
An Hawaiian planter, who is anxious
for the ratification of the treaty, informed
me recently that unless the United States
continued to relieve the islands from the
burden OF paying daty on sugar the pro-
ducers would be compelled to retain the
servile element, but that if the treaty re-
mained in force Americans would be en-
ployed at good wages. This program me
has been changed and we are now told
that If there is to be high-priced labor an
nexation must be accomplished. :,
The addition Of nearly $4,000. Asiatie
coolies 10 the population of this country is
a highly interesting anticipation. Their
pretended exclusion from the rest of the
country is a:deception. Mr.. Stevens, who
was the most urgent of annexatiopists,
and WHO in my judgment brought about
the overthrow OF Liliuokaiani,- says in his
letter written 10 Mr.. Foster, Novem ber 90
1892: "At the present price of sugar and
the prices likely to hold In the future,
sugar-raising in these islands can be con-
tiEued only by the cheapest possible
labor-that of the Japanese, the Chinese
and the Indian coolies" No doubt Mr..
Stevens was right but he adds that if the
islands are AmericaniZeu, oranges, lemons,
bananas, ETC.. can be raised pEOfita bly,. |
am told by Hawaiian planters that this
statement is incorrect. Itwou1d seem un:
likely that any important source of profit
has been so long overlooked. There is
clearly nothing in annexation for our
laborers.
We often hear that the United States
countries. The issue thus raised opens a
broad field of fdisputation into which do
not propose now 10 enter further than to
say that from Mr.. Jefferson, whose words
upon this inject have been often quoted,
10 very late date, the policy and the
teachings of our ablest statesmen have
been against the acquisition of any terri
tory requiring a navy to defend il. The
idea OF becoming strong by acquiring
something to protect is a novelty. We
are asked TO annex the. islands because
they are too weak to live, and yet We are
told that their annexation will add to our
strength.
But l object TO annexation upon other
grounds. While there are MANY earnest
and honorable men who favor this step,
still viewing the matter from my stand
point, / regard the present proposition as
intensely dishonest. There are not above
2000 American males on these islands.
These people, as L believe. through the
instrumen tality of Mr.. Stevens and under
the American flag, drove the former Gov
eminent from power and seized upon the
country They call their establ ishment a
republic. This is nnisnomer. No one
/. IL n
those who swear allegiance to the oil.
garchy. No one else voted on the constitu-
ton. There are hardly any of the natives
who cannot read and write, yetthey are dis.
franchised. They are not consulted as lc
this cession of their territory, or as to
anything. It's proposed that the United
States shall be party to this open and
paIpable effort TO deprive innocent people
of their inherent privileges.
While they are not an aggressive peo-
pie, they are nevertheless far from being
savages. a member OF the Dole establish
ment very recently said that unless an
nexation was had the Hawaiian republic
could not maintain itself II this is true,
it means that the Hawaiians will take the
matter into their own hands. There is no
danger from any outside source. 1t is the
business of the present rulers to manu-
facture stories OF foreign attack. The
truth is that Mr.. Dole and his associates
know that they represent per cent OF
the people of the islands and that the
other 9S per cent will some time or other
assume authority. This fear permeates
the language of the proposed treaty. 1t
is not designed to make the islands an or
binary Territory or State, for in that event
it might be difficult to prevent the natives
voting. If the natives are allowed this
right there is not a man connected with
the present management vino would be
permitted to hold any place. 1t is plain
case of the minority managing the busi-
ness of the majority.
Something has been said with reference
10 the fact that the California Legislature
in 1888 passed a resolution favoring an
nexation. A mum Der of the mem bers of
that Legislature have told me, and 1 b ave
no doubt with entire accuracy, that they
paid buI little attention to the subject
and that the resolution went through
without particular reflection. But If our
Legislatures opinion has any bearing
upon this subject it is only advisory. We
find that a similar and later resolution:
which had passed the Assembly In 1895.
was defeated in the Senate by the follow
ing significant vote: Ayes-Senators
Beard, Franck, Henderson, Orr, Pedlar,
Shine, Simpson, Voorhees, and Withing-
ton-9. Noes-Senators Arms, Androus.
Bert, Burke, Denfson, Dunn, Fay, Flint,
Gesford, Gleayes, Hart Holloway, Ma
honey, Martin, Mathews, McAllister, Nc:
Gowan, Seawell, Seymour, Shippee, Toner
and Whitehurst-22.
1t will be noted that not a single Demo-
crat voted in the affirmative, and that the
negative votes. as far as politics are con-
cerned, were about evenly divided. There
fore the Legislature of 1895 declined to
favor annexation. mention this because
l have not observed any reference to the
vote which have Just quoted. AS far as
/ am personally concerned, my views be.
ing that the carrying out of the proposed
annexation woulG be not only impolfiic,
but also dishonorable and dishonest, do
not intend to support the project. In
matters involving principle 1 shall al
ways vote as my conscien ce dictates, re-
gardless OF the opinions of others, and
such has always been the rule in the