The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-11-28
DENOUNCE EXCHANGE
As AN OUTRAGE
Continued rrorr Page One.1


statements published. Re then invited
discussion from the members.
Robert Cation was the first to ex
press an opinion and the only one tC
express a preference for the Irwin site
without condemning the method:
taken to secure it. He said that he
preferred the Palace Square location
as one better INTELLECTUALLY. He real
lied that he was in a minority at the
meeting, he said.
F. w. Wakefield stated that he toe
had favored the Irwin site originally
but that preference for sites was not
now the question. He wished to ex-
press himself as very strongly opposed
to the policy which had been shown
of overriding the wishes of the com
munity. If this matter of an eX-
change be allowed to go through with
out a protest it would show up the
Association in a very bad light. Mr..
Irwin has other property to dispose of
in the Islands. If the precedent be al
lowed to stand, Mr. Irwin might want
to exchange his Waikiki property for
the Naval Station grounds, or Wal
manalo bay for Pearl Harbor. No one
could tell where such a policy would
bring the community. The question of
the desirability of site was not up for
debate, but the policy of reopening
the site question was. 1t was bad
public policy for the Association to
agree to the exchange without a vigor-
Gus protest. Personally he would now
withdrew all his ideas regarding the
Irwin site suitability and agree with
the majority that the exchange should
not be made.
Outrage and Dishonest Act.
After James Steiner had stated briefly
his opinion that the proposed transfer
was an outrage, w. C. Peacock spoke.
He stated that personally it would pay
him better to see the Irwin site chosen,
but if it was possible for any two, three
or four persons to control the United
States with its ninety million people he
thought it was time that this was
known and also time that there be
change. cit is absolutely an outrage,
a breach Of confidence and dishonest
act" he declared.
NJ. Braseh stated that it was not only
a breach of confidence but a breach of
contract as well. He felt that Wash
ington had no right to trade away the
work done by the community and the
money contributed by the merchants. If
it were possible to trade the site off
in the original condition it had been in,
not so much could be said against it,
but as it is any transfer would be
distinct breach of contract. Such a
procedure between merchants would be
considered dishonorable and he saw no
reason why Washington should be able
to do any such a thing.
F. 7. P. Waterhouse thought that a
protest should certainly be made
against any change in the site being
eonsummated without the public being
The deal had been con&lud
ed so far as the authorities could con-
clude it in secrecy and without the
public having been given any intima-
ton that such a thing was beng
thought of. The public of Honolulu
certainly should have been advised as
to what had been going on.
There were present at the meeting,
in addition to those referred to, E. Fl.
Paris. c. s. Crane, A G. Gonsalves, G.
Du Roi, T. f. Lansing. G. Bartlett, R.
Buchly, w. NJ. Bray, W. F. Warren, E.
O. White, A. Coyne, G. Bellina, J. NJ.