The San Francisco call., 1897-04-27

claimed by the advocates of the treaty
that if the Hawaiian free sugar is pre-
vented from coming here the trust would
be able to shut down one of the retnerles.
That is simply nonsense. The watson
Vile factory is turning out 10000 tons OF
sugar annually, and rhe Salinas factory,
in course of construction, will have
capacity of $1,000 tons. Thus these two
factories alone will be capable of manu-
featuring enough sugar to supply the peo-
pie OF the Pacific Coast, and all this sugar
will be refined on the coast.
But IN addition to these factories there
are two others, which produce between
20, 600 and 80 600 tons per year. All this
will also be refined here, and this will
mean not a curtailing of the refining ca
pscity but an increase OF it. 1t would not
pay to ship the raw sugar East, have 1t
refined there and then have It sent back
to the consumer.
THE result will be the establishment of
more refiperies in California. And in
stead of the California product being used
as q supply for the Pacific Coast States
and Territories it will go to consumers in
tie Missouri River territory and perhaps
eventually as far East as Chicago.
This means employment in California
of additional thousands of people, the
great enhancement in value of farming
property in the sugar-be sections and
add ed prosperity for the State at large.
LET me call attention TO a phase of the
situation that is entirely lost sight OF.
We are taking from Hawaii its entire
crop of sugar, which will this year be
about 235, 900 tons, for which we will pay
in round figures $15, 000 900. OF this prod
uct not to exceed 20 900 tons are turned
out by Americans. while the money for
the remaining 165. 600 tons is paid to Ger
man and English planters and manufac-
turers, and out of the 20, 600 tons credited
TO Americans $4,000 tons are produced
from the plantat ions in which i am inter
ested.
my course in this matter is prompted
simply and solely by my desire to see the
sugar industry of California fostered and
i'm proved. My opposition to the Hawaiian
reciprocity treaty is inspired by the de-
sire to encourage the investment of Ameri-
can capital in this State instead of paying
millions each year to the foreigners-not
Hawaiians-who largely control the sugar
product of the islands. Not even the
workmen employed on the sugar planta-
tions and in the factories are native
Hawaiians, but Chinese and Japanese
coolies and Portuguese, who receive from
$12 to $15 a month and must ind them
selves.
Those who are standing for continu-
ance OF the treaty am sure are not aware
of the fact that the money we pay for Ha-
waiian sugar does not benefit the islands,
for it eventually mostly flows to England,
Germany, China and japan. Ny conten-
ton Is that the money can be and should
be kept in this country, and this can be
accomplished by the abrog alton OF the ex-
isting treaty with Hawaii and by placing
the same duty on Hawaiian sugar that is
pl aced on any other similar foreign
product
Another popular fallacy that is being
circulated is that | was always strongly
in favor of this treaty. That is not so.
No one was more bitterly opposed to it
when it was under consideration than /,
and l spent at one time about $500 in
sending petition with long list of sig
natures attached to Washington in 1876 in
opposition to it.
"At that time / was i'm porting the raw
material from Manila and Batavia and
had to pay duty on it. There was COM
bination at that time between the sugar
trust, with Searles at its head, the sugar
planters of Hawaii and the owners OF the
American Sugar Refinery of this City
against me because l would not go into
the trust.
"For self-protection l proceeded to the
=, IL, 4 AZ -
raiser there. with the ultimate result of
not only beating the trust and its comb bi-
nation on the coast, but of invading its