The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-02-24

verify Of which these low prices indicate
And. as II our domestic producers did
not have enough in European, Astatic
and Hawaiian cheap labor and raw ma
tertal TO contend with, double Foreign eX-
port bounty competition and the ad
valOrem operation OF our own law have
been thrown in since 1884. And as thouGh
all thls did not suffice, our sugar prOduc-
ers are forced TO also meet the cheap
labor OF Africa. Between January 1 and
October J. is1S, Egypt shipped US $50
tons OF sugar, valued at S3,J33ilO, and
for the fiscal year ending June 20, 1893,
she sent US S3,ZjI,sl2 Of sugar In British
bottoms that took back no return cargo
Her yield of sugar per ton OF cane IS
over 30 pounds. as against a maximum
C;ermauy- IS sirnDIy forcing the United
States as she is all other nations and
the colonies, TO defend a home Industry,
which is iu line with her selfish policy
toward our meat exports.
Our domestic sugar producers also have
To- contend with the natural effect Of
HAWAIIAN COMPETITION.
For reasons, ostensibly commercial and
in the interest Of our Government and
particularly the Pacific slope. Congress
in 1876 entered into supposed reel
procity" agreement with Hawaii, which
provided for the free entry of her sugar
into the United States our total eX-
ports at that time TO Hawaii amounted
to about 100000. In 1890 they had reach
ed only $3,609,OOJ
Hawaii in 1877 were only S2.5JO.OO0. while
the average for the past 10 years has
been SlO.0JI.O0O. From 1873 TO 1883, both
inclusive our total imports were $40, J0O.-
90 while we sent her only s56,JOJ.OOO.
Balance against us. Ss4.OOO.OOO. OF the
$40. O0O.ot0 which was sent US, upward OF
Si3s. 100000 was sugar free"
We may have thought IL prudent and
desirable TO secure cOaling station in
the Pacific at one time, but in 1894 we
had already obtained Pearl HarbOr from
Hawaii by an absolute indefeasible grant
under Section of the extension of the
treaty Of lssi- And II was obtained as a
part consideration for the great trade
advantage which Hawaii had already OBJ
tanned and which n was supposed silS
would derive Under the extension. This
Hawaiian agreement was never in favor
with Congress nor the people: and II mas
always been and is now Inconsistent
with our professions Of encouragement
for domestic sugar.
Senator Morrill, long since submitted
fOrcible report in favor OF the aDroSa-
ton OF this treaty as one most unequal,
unfair and unjust. That report suggest
ed that IL would have been wiser 10 nave
bestowed the whole Of this bounty as a
premium on sugar produced at nome
The report also said that We ought not
handicap our own sugar producers by this
treaty. His report concluded by recon-
mending that notice be given OF the abro-
cation OF the treaty.
man said, referring TO this Hawaiian
mo country ever made so foolish q
treaty as that. There probably is not in
the history OF the human race a contract
so one-sided, so absurd and so indefensi
BILE That treaty has cost us $4S,-
10000. We got no advantages from IL;
and our expectations TO those Islands did
not largely increase
Mr. DOlph said:
1--WE could have given TO the
Hawaiian Government all the exports
that we have made TO that country ana
then paid IL a bonus of over $l3,OOOOOO II
we had charged the ordinary duties on
sugar, rice and other articles admitted
with the Japenes, Chinese and Portu- |
I'VE have already given them between /
S11 and So for every acre OF land in the
kindgom OF Hawaii"
When the agreement was originally en- |
tered into something was said about its /
effect on our American sugar producers, |
but this seems to have been put aside by |
a statement that the Hawaiian sugar |
tonnage was too infinitesimal TO war
rant any fears. But it has developed I'M |
der this treaty from SO,OOO,OoO POUNDS IN |
1891 TO over 4OO,OOO,OOO OF pounds IN $780, |
nearly the whole of which comes TO the I
United States
we need revenue, and we pretend that
we desire to protect and encourage do
nestle sugar production, and yet mere /
we have treaty of questionable Ieganty I
continued. which deprives us of from 81 1
10000 TO $6,OO0,0OO of revenue, and 1t GER
tainly puts the stamp of insincerity upon
our professions of friendship Tor dones-
This matter concerns our domestic suS-
ar industry in this way. The Hawaiian
crop is equal to the entire demand OF
the States west OF the Missouri RIVER
Sugar can be produced very cheaplE IN
Hawaii because of Labor contracts
with the Japanese chinese ana f S,g
guese. wages being from $40 TO Slz
month and when working under cuI-
tivatio1 contracts" the rate IS only 81
per ton Cor cane, as against ~ 10 S4-l.o lot
The estimated duty that the United
States RENTED on sugar from HaMah
from 1871 to and including 1891 was 500
2OOOOO The value of the sugars from
Hawaii in 1896 is estimated at Sl2,3
OOO OO0 90 per cent duty on which would
be-. So 1000, showing that on sugar alone
the. United States has given HAWAII SOL
200 OO0 by way of bounty! We remit
more than the entire value OF our exports
TO Hawaii. and yet we pretend 10 be
Rut il may be said that Americans
have invested in Hawaii about SlS.O0O,W0
in sugar. What OF it2 1t is foreign capl-
tai when IL deserts. our shore ana es-
capes our taxation, Is american capt
tai Invested abroad in foreign competi-
tive Industrial pursuits TO receive favor
at the expense OF needed revenue, anu VI
home capital2 Is that 10 continue 10 ~
the policy OF this Government II so,
there must appear some very powerful
motive behind il Mr.. Il. X Pangborn. OF
Nevv Jersey who was in Hawaii during /
the entire summer Of 1896, says IN the
New York sun of January 3, 1871, OF I
Hawaiian sugar lands: /
raised are the most productive OF any IN K
the world, an acre OF good sugar lanu
in Hawaii yielding twice OF more IMAM
twice as much per acre as any lanus IN l
Louisiana or cuba. OF these lands, avail K
able for sugar raising. nearly two-thirds
are already under cultivation. and large l
profits are realized. The remainder Is not /
vet utilized.
This Hawaiian agreement also Involves
rice another Of our competitive agrlcul-
tI1raI products that is struggling hard
against foreign cheap labor From 1871 /
TO 1893. inclusive, Hawaii has sent US
d1,t,- free 81 SEQ goo worth of rice, over
ff2 600 OO0 pounds. We may he wanting
new markets. but we do not need con-
finuauce of any such non-reciprocal
bounty strain imposed upon our aSricul-
ture as that embraced in this Hawaiian
agreement. that * not and never mas
been reciprocal Disguised as a reel
nrocfty'' agreement il is fraud upon
its face and begotten to enrich foreign
sugar planters at the expense OF our own
The Department of Agriculture con-
cedes that We can not produce sugar
with any profit whatever, under pres