The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-02-05
DIR. M'GKEw REPLIES.
Is For Annexation and Thinks
Missionaries are ALI Right.

Is For Annexation and Thinks
Missionaries are ALI Right.
MIR. EDITOR: Sir-On looking over
the speeches OF some of the gentlemen
at the annexation meeting, held last
night at the club rooms, L see that my
name was used in a manner that might
mislead some VINO do not know. or
have forgotten CD the position L have
held for the last rs or 80 years, in re-
gard 20 the annexation OF the Islands
I'D the United States.
Soon after arriving here l saw that
il would be OF great Importance TO these
Islands 10 be annexed TO the United
States. The conSummatIon OF such
thing would give this country pros
perity and a future that it could get In
no other way, and strong and stable
Government TO back II.
But 1 have not sat down to write an
argument III favor OIL anneXing this
Government, but 10 correct a remark
made Dy Mr.. Dillingham; at the meet
ing OF the club last evening. He says,
in speaking of the cry against mis-
sionaries" and adventures" six or
seven years ago, little of such talk
was ever made, and lin former years
annexation was not talked OF, either.
| fear that the speakers mind Is fall
ing him in regard to his dates. At the
time he talks of annexation was freely
discussed, and by such gentlemen as
Father Castle, General Hartwell, Mr..
Cartwright and several others, not as
Mr.. Dillingham; says, by two men, "one
OF whom was DR.. McGrew, who made
themselves conspicuous by advocating
it," but / must say that MIR. Dilling-
ham will agree with me in saying at
that time it was very unpopular, very
distastefuI to many of the party that
seem to be anxious for it now, as sew
eral of them were then holding Office
under the Monarchy. 1t certainly was
disagreeable to them to hear parties
urging a thing that would take the
bread and butter out of their mouths.
/ have always been consistent in my
advocacy of annexation. L wish the
speaker and others could say the same
who are now the lOudest in their
urgency of the question. | Will now
shake hands with them. l have no de-
sire but that they may succeed, with
no sugar interests, just one alone for
the interest of ALL About the time 1.-TWO
months ago) when l startled Mr.. Dill
Iingham. for which l am very sorry,
a writer in one of the papers, who the
editor VOuched Tor as one OF the Olu
missionary stock, was opposing an
nexation, it was generally conceded
that planters were opposed to 1t.
believe the missionary children" are
largely in the business of planting. 1t
looked to goodly number of us poor
devils outside, who were for annexa-
ton, that they were playing double
game-some were talking of wanting
a protectorate-many things looked a
little scaly. This was about the time
of my conversation with Mr.. Dilling-
ham.
As TO missionaries and their child
rem, believe the former are not troub-
ling themselves about anything but
their honest endeavors to do good to
mankind. I am with them as long as
they adhere to that. l am not, as Mr..
DiIIingham's remark would have it,
opposed TO them or their children,
most of whom are old enough to look
out for their own interests, and are
right in doing so, but do not have them
tramp upon the toes of all outsiders,
because they are not missionaries.
Yours respectfully.
JOHN s. McGREW.