The Hawaiian gazette., 1906-10-26
Yours truly,
w. A. KINNEY.

1904, G2,320,416.
Hawaii Exports to U. $500, e942-
PSI; 1895, G744,611; 1900, R2,7Ol ,S29; 1904.
e5,O26, 7O6
Nor is this all. out of merchandise
to the value of e5,1S6,SS4 exported in
1904 only G4622 was carried in foreign
bottoms, and, so determined are the
Americans to secure the entire ship
ping trade that tonnage in quantities
too small to be sent round the Horn is
taken to San Francisco and trans
ported thence by rail. At one time here
our supremacy as carriers was undis-
puted. But year ago 426 American
vessels of 673,41S tons entered the port
of Honolulu, and seventy-six British
vessels of ia, 1862 tons Soon the Union
Jack will be as unfamiliar in Hawaii
as the Stars and Stripes once were
! But it may be urged that the Sand
wich Islands are too remote TO have
any bearing on the situation in the
Caribbean. One might as well urge
that Malta has no bearing on the stu
alton in the Red Sea- The only diff
ference is that Suez has been cut and
Panama has not. But 1t is unlikely
that our luck will save us from the
consequences of our stupidity in the
New World as it did in the Old. AS
though history repeats itself in the
same way We are indeed ca reful not to
oppose the cutting of the Isthmian as
we opposed the Suez Canal. But we
may show a lack of foresight in an
other direction equally fatal to our in
terests. That Is precisely what we are
doing. We allow our soldiers and SAIL
ors to make practical use of the teach
ing of Makan, but not our statesmen.
In America 1t is national. She has
no need to wax eloquent about 1t be-
cause it is the basis of her policy. To
her, therefore, Hawaii is the farthest
outpost of the new trade route OF the
future by way of Panama.
But admitting that we could safely
sacrifice our commercial interests in
Hawaii until the Union was able to
turn the political and strategical posi-
ton against us, what about our COM
mercial interests in the West Indian
Islands? In Porto Rico we are no bet
ter off than We are in Hawaii, each
having been given the blessings of the
Dingley tariff and American coastwise
laws in the same year. Unfortunate
ly in the Board of Trade returns Cuba
and Porto Rico were treated as a unit
till 1900. Hence it is not possible to
make perfect comparison between
British and American trade before the
beginning of the present century New
ertheless, the following figures are IL
Eliminating enough to be instructive:
UNITED KINGDOM.
Exports to Porto Rico-19Oo, G1O6.-
al; 1904, G44,495.
Imports from Porto Rico-1900 s671;
1904, trifling.
UNITED STATES.
Exports to Porto Rico-1s9O. e459,507;
1895, fS66,70S; 1900. el.4s3,o00; 1904. s2,-
141, ,4O3.
Imports from Porto Rico-1S9O, ESQ.,
1926: 1895, e30l, ,S02 1900. s1,1S2, 200; 1904.
e23l5, 1882.
But these are American Territories
which, so far as commerce is concern
ed, are on the same footing as any OF
the States. The question for us to
consider is do we intend to allow Pan
anna and Domingo and Cuba to be
closed to British trade in the same
way? Apparently we do. since we sit
still with folded hands, and watch the
ceaseless activity of our rivals, when
we should be taking measures to meet
them on their own ground. We could
not adopt more detached attitude IL
We lived in another planet. Indeed, SO
incapable of understanding the situa-
tion do We seem that the only step
taken by us in the Caribbean of late
years has been entirely retrograde.
That was the withdrawal OF the sub
sidy to the West Indian mail service.
/ An Oriental fatalist could not present
a more impassive front TO adverse for
tune than England to the decline OF
her supremacy in "a region which is