The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-06-27
BENEFITS OF ANNEXATION.

We have received a letter which con-
tains the following question: What
with labor strikes, stamp taxes, in
creased prices on goods, carpet baggers
and political bosses, how do you like
annexation as far as you've got, Mr. F.
c. A? wouldn't you rather have the
Monarchy back or even the Republic =
We assure our correspondent that the
Advertiser would not have the hands
on the political clock turn back single
day. There are drawbacks to every
good thing, annexation included; but
all of them put together cannot do so
much harm to these Islands as would
have followed the loss of reciprocity.
Our sugar treaty was always in dan
ger after beet sugar took a start and
in course Of time Mainland politics
would have secured its abrogation. In
fact a movement in that direction be-
gan in 1897 and might have succeeded
but for annexation during the war year
following. Witness this extract from
the San Fra ncisco Chronicles file of
March IS, 1897:
WASHINGTON, March 12-There prom
Uses to be a lively fight in the Senate
when the Dingley tariff bill reaches that
body, provided the clause already adopt
ed by the Ways and Means Committee
reaffirming the Hawaiian sugar reciproc-
ity agreement of January so, 1875, is al
lowed to stand in the bill and passes the
House. The attack on the treaty VII be
led by the Louisiana Senators, Caffery
and McEnery, in the interest of Southern
cane sugar producers, and they will be
assisted by Senators representing States
in which the beet sugar industry is a fac
tor. 1t will be made in the name of the
consumer, and will depend for success on
popular antagonism for trusts and mo-
nopolies. Senators White and Perkins
viii defend the treaty, as they know it's
vital Importance to the interests of the
Coast, not the least of which is the Ha-
waiian sugar carrying trade.
The principal contention of the oppo-
nents of the reciprocity treaty which has
stood for more than twenty years, is
that, since there are no independent re-
fineries on the Pacific Coast, all the sugar
imported from the Hawaiian Islands goes
20 the Spreckels refneries. They are so
closely identified with the sugar trust, it
is claimed. that the consumer gets no
benefit whatever from the reciprocity
agreement.
When the treaty was first adopted the
carrying trade was encouraged ana many
American bottoms engaged in it. A
present the great proportion of the Ha-
wa,iari sugar crop is carried direct to New
York by sailing vessels built in england,
and IN many cases by vessels flying the
Er sslish flag, though recently n number
have been given Hawaiian registers. This
the opponents of the reciprocity agree
ment assert gives to the trust all the ad-
vantage of free sugar, inasmuch as the
Hawaiian crop figures as an item in the
raw supply. BY reason OF this free entry,
it is said, the Hawaiian sugar corpora
tons stock, which is owned almost en-
tirely in the United States, is able to
earn as much as % per cent dividends,
and has made fortunes for the holders.
This is what has caused opposition to
the treaty for the last eight years.
The fight against abrogation Will be
made by anneXationisJs and close rela-
tionists who now figure that the presen
Administration will be obliged to grant
at least a protectorate. They will sum-
mon all the arguments which were SO
successfully used at the time the treaty
was consummated. They will set forth
that American capital should be encour-
aged in the Islands, and that all, or near
ly all, of the lumber, textile materials
hardware and large amount of machin-
cry used is now supplied by California
dealers. This trade would certainly be
shut out in case the treaty was abrogat-
ed
Better the minor ills we have than
sugar would have implied. And as for
the minor ills are they not compensated
for by increase in the general sum of
prosperity for people both in and out
of the sugar business?