The Hawaiian gazette., 1900-06-29
prkiiirs or ANNEXATION

REkIIITs or ANIMATION
We have received lettrt which CON
talns Tie following question: "WhW
with tabor strikes. stamp taxes lu
creased prices on goods. carpet bafrrfs
and political bosses. how do you llk,
annexation as TAR az you've got MI y
G. A. wouldn't you rather have The
Monarchy back or even the Republic
We assure our correspondent That the
Advertiser would not have the hand
on the political clock turn back slnFl'
day. There are drawbacks to every
good thing. annexation included bu.
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 n 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 Francisco Chronicles file OF
March Is. 1897:
WASHINGTON, March i2.-Thcfe prom
ises 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
reaffirmlng the Hawaiian sugar reciproc-
ity agreement of January 81. 1875. Is al
lowed to stand in the bill and passes the
House. The attack on the treaty VIII be
led by the Louisiana Senators, Caffery
and McEnery. in the interest OF Southern
cane sugar producers. and they will he
H...-
in which the beet sugar Industry is a fac
tor. II will be made In the name Of the
consumer. and will depend for success on
popular antagonlsm for trusts and mo-
nopolies. Senators White and Perkins
will defend the treaty, as they know it's
vital importance to the interests of the
Coast, not the loast OF which IL the lIa-
waiian sugar carrying trade.
The principal contention of the oppo
nents OF the reciprocity treaty, which has
stood for more than twenty years. IL
that, since there are no independent re-
finerios on the Pacific Coast. all the sugar
imported from the Hawaiian Islands goes
to the Spreckcs rciineries. They are so
closely identified with the sugar trust. 1t
IL 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 II. At
present the great proportion OF the Ha-
waiiau sugar crop il carried direct to New
York by sailing vessels built I'm England,
and IN many cases by vessels flying the
Er ,sllsh flag, though recently number
have been given Hawaiian registers. This,
the opponents of the reciprocity agree
ment assert, gives to the trust all the adj
vantage of free sugar. nasmuch as the
Hawaiian crop figures az an item in the
raw supply. BY reason of this free entry,
Il is said, the Hawaiian sugar corpora
tion's stock, which is owned almost en-
tirely in the United States, is able to
earn as much as rs per cent dividends,
and has made fortunes for the holders.
This In what has caused opposition to
the treaty for the last eight years.
The fight against abrosation will be
made by annexationists and close rela-
tionists, who now figure that the present
Administration will be obliged to grant
at least a protectorate. They Will sum
mon all the arguments which We're so
successfully used at the time the treaty
was contaminated 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 "A 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
the graver ones that duty on Island
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?