The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1897-12-20
BLIND GUIDES.

If those, who are felicitating them
selves upon the supposed fact that am
nexation is on the road to being de-
feated, which, as The Star has point
ed out, is not fact, nor is there any
ground for the superstition, would
just consider in what pickle they
would be if their pet project were car
ried out, they would be somewhat less
jubilant than they are now.
1t seems almost impossible to drive
into these peoples heads that if we
do not get annexation, we shall GER
tainly not get reciprocity, and with
out reciprocity the great industry of
the Islands will be enormously Grip
pied. 1t is all very well for one to say
that he has no sugar stock, so wheth-
er the sugar industry prospers or not,
it does not matter to him. But it does
matter The great public buildings,
the roads, the landings, the steamers,
the ships in the harbor, depend upon
the sugar industry. Whether man
has sugar stock or not, whether he
works directly for plantation or not.
he still has interests in the great in
dustry of the country, for upon that
industry rests the prosperity of the
whole country.
Now if any one will cast his MEM
DRY back TO the events of the earlier
part of this year, he will remember
that when the Dingley bill reached
the Senate, one of the first things
struck out of the bill was the clause
granting the continuance of special
advantages to these Islands. He must
remember how bitter was the fight
over this clause. and that finally it be-
came evident that there was a major
ity against it. In fact many regard
ed it as dead, and a very black Mon
day indeed seemed to he lowering in
the near future. 1t was at this juno
ture that the Annexation Treaty came
into the Senate. With the appearance
of that treaty the opposition to the
clause in the Dingley bill ceased, and
the majority against Hawaiian inter
ests turned into "A majority in its fa-
vor. Senators who were bitter oppo-
nents of the trade advantages given
under the Dngley bill, became ardent
supporters of the annexation treaty.
Over the Dingley bill clause, which
only required majority of one to
pass, Hawaiian interests were unable
to hold up their heads. Upon the An
nexation proposition there was and is
an overwhelming majority in favor
though the required two-thirds was
not assured by last advices.
Now in face of facts like these how
can any one argue that reciprocity
will be continued with Hawaii, if the
annexation treaty, or resolution, falls
through. Annexation has its foes, il
is true, but reciprocity has double the
number of foes, and those who have
done their utmost to defeat anneNa-
ton will discover that a good part of
the inter-island feet is laid up, and
the longshore man, who finds nc
ships at the wharves; or the planta-
ton hand, who finds that the labor is
cut down; or the land owner, who
finds his leases thrown up, will all
highly appreciate the effect of our
not getting annexation.
Those who have preached and are
preaching the doctrine of reciprocity
without annexation are talking of
what has no foundation in fact, and
are proving but blind guides leading
into the ditch of commercial failure.
Fortunately for the country's well
fare the anneXationists are strong.