The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1906-09-21
{. P. DOLE
AND CHINESE
tMan Special to the Advertiser)

mail Special to the Advertiser)
WASHINGTON. ID. G.. September s.
w. A. Bryan of Honolulu was here for
a brief visit last week. but went back
TO New York.
The Treasury Department announces
that the customs receipts for Hawaii
during the last fiscal year were 81
s,s.7s4.' as against si.Ois34o the previous
fiscal year.
Mr.. Gehr, of Kohala ditch fame, Is
amending considerable Of the summer
IN Washington. He Is much enragec
by statements made in Honolulu, re-
fecting upon his connection with the
efforts to secure the ditch franchise.
and promises that Honolulu people Will
hear from him later on.
+. p. DOLE ON LABOR.
Ex-Attorney General f. P. Dole had
a letter in the Washington Post few
days ago about labor Conditions in
Hawaii. which brought the following
editorial from the New York Sun: "A
few days ago the Hon. Edmund p. Dole,
formerly Attorney General of Hawaii
published in the Washington Post
signed statement of his views about
labor conditions in the islands. To any
intelligent reader of Mr.. Dole's COM
munication 1t must have been obvious
that he did not want to tell all he knew
or half he thought in regard to MS
chosen subject. 10 an expert analyst
OF testimony, however 1t was equally
obvious that he really said great deal
more than he had intended.
"Mr. Dole makes 1t entirely plain that
the prosperity of Hawaii depends
wholly upon Chinese labor. Ever since
the middle of the nineteenth century
this has been a patent and acknowl-
edged fact, and until the coolies some
wears ago were barred at the instance
or through the influence of organized
labor Hawaii was rich beyond the
widest dreams of avarice. Sugar Is
king there. There are other products
Which under a different agricultural
system might serve the purpose; but
the material destiny Of Hawaii Is IN
yolved in sugar growing. and, right or
wrong, stupid or enlightened, that Is
the hinge on which the entire situation
swings. II the Hawaiian planters can
get the quality and quantity Of labor
lney require the island group Will De
reinstated as a garden spot. and our
national wealth and happiness CORE
spondingly promoted. This is the prob
lem to which Mr.. Dole addresses him
self, and now that we own the Sand
witch Islands it is a problem of init
mate, not to say imperative. import
ance. Since every alternative and
makeshift has failed, the Chinese ques-
ton reappears.
According to Mr.. Dole, the Hawai-
ians have adventured in every field,
always unsuccessfuly. The Portuguese
were almost satisfactory. but they soon
withdrew from the big plantations and
set up for themselves. The japanese
though Mr.. Dole makes no special mem
ton OF tnem--have proved utterly un-
satisfactory, as we know from over
wkelming contributory testimony. They
are industrious and competent enough,
but Extensively conceited, thoroughly
untrustworthy and prone to arrogance
and agitation. They have been gently
but firmly waited from the Hawaiian
shores and the consequent screams OF
anguish and indignation in San Fran
cisco convey to US all the suggestion
necessary.
Here then, remains the question or
Hawaii's fate. one extract from MI.
Dole's published statement may be ex-
amined with profit:
"'Here are a few tropical islands IN
the mid-Pacific that were exceedingly
prosperous until Chinese We're barred
out, the value of whose exports was
greater in proportion to the popula-
ton than that of any other country
on earth; that spent millions of dollars
every year for the products of American
labor; that furnished a livelihood for
thousands of white people within their
cwn borders-as high a grade of men
and women as can be found anywhere
and without Oriental labor these is
lands would have been of little value
to their inhabitants and of no value to
American worltngmen.
"Who, then, is the beneficiary OF the
Chinese exclusion law? Clearly, Hawaii
is the victim. Certainly, California,
and indeed the VIII ole Pacific Slope,
If the land owners and wage payers
were appealed to, would decide with
practical unanimity against the law.
Perhaps Mr.. Samuel Gompers will ex-