The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-05-27

committed the House to future appro-
priations, and that the plan was pre-
mature. Mr.. Hit carefully avoided
the subject of annexation. but stated
that the grant of the exclusive right to
Pearl Harbor was an absolute grant,
for which the sum of S23, 900, 900 had
been paid in advantages under the
treaty. These are serious words from
one of the best friends of reciprocity
and annexation. But Mr.. Hit may not
be understood. He believes that the
United States, as the owners of the
right, should now take step in adj
vance and secure foothold at once,
because there can be. he believes, no
doubt about the right. If there were
doubts he could not advise appropri-
ations until the matter is settled.
Reciprocity and annexation, he holds,
are separate matters. This course. he
believes, is in the interests of Hawaii
While there were indications of
some division on party lines, it ap-
pears that the vote was not strictly a
party question. On the whole, it
would be premature to take this vote
as straw showing the direction of
the Congressional wind The fact
must, also, be considered that there
the House present at the voting.
The Evening Star of this city, has
finally determined to fight the Sugar
Trust, and opened on Monday with a
caustic article on that great corpora
ton. The Trust people privately
charge that the friends of Hawaii have
fomentedJthis attack. It is not true.
The letter in the Star, from Hawaii,
signed "Kamehameha cites the enor-
nous yield of sugar from the Eva plan-
tation as an indication of the resources
of the Islands. While the policy of
stating the truth is the best, of course,
it should be the whole truth. The enc
mics of Hawaii quote the statement
and say: "You see, Hawaii needs no
protection. She can produce II tons of
sugar to the acre" But the average
production is far below that figure, and
should be clearly stated in any refer
ence to the producing capacity of the
plantations.
If any one will read the arguments
before the Committee on Foreign At
fairs, made in 1882, when the renewal
of the treaty was under consideration,
he will notice that counsel for Hawaii,
in answer to the statement that the
United States were paying too dear
uct of sugar was at that time only 49,
600 tons per year. and the Inference
was that the limit of production had
been reached, so that the bounty"
paid by the United was. and would re-
main, an inconsiderable sum. The in
crease of the product to 900 900 tons
changes the condition and gives, so
far as it is worth anything some new
strength to the argument based on
unequal benefits.
There seems to he Gin the air. a feel
ing that the treaty should be modified
so that the benefits" may be more
evenly adjusted This seems TO be the
compromise measure suggested by
Senator Perkins. On the other hand
there is a strong feeling in the Senate
that this should not be done indirect
Iv. through the tariff bill At the pres
ent writing this seems to be the pre-
vailing sentiment
Since the Japanese have published
their grievances against the Hawaiian
Government, some of the friends here
of Hawaii do not believe that the Gov
eminent acted wisely in refusing coun-
sci to the immigrants. The enemies of
Hawaii insist that it indicates set
tied purpose on the part of the Govern
ment to force an issue with Japan;
that if there was no such purpose, the
immigrants would have been allowed
the privilege or right of consulting
persons who could inform them
whether they had or had not any
fright" whatever, according to the
usages of civilized nations. The full
and free allowance of opportunity to
ascertain their status would have pre-
Guided the charges of unfairness and
intention to force an issue. In the
present rather critical conditions Of af-
fairs here and the prevalent suspicion
that Hawaii is trying to drag the
United States into the Japanese con-
troversy, such a couse would have
been preferable w. n. A.