Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 190, 11 May 1891 — HAWAIIAN RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES. [ARTICLE]

HAWAIIAN RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

Saturday last gave us the rare tr< a at of a genuihe attempt at an tMJitorial in the antiquated ānd fossil organ ofour Reform Party, i. c., the party whieh is fast beginning to inean only the ring of eapitalists and land-grabbers representing the American speculative infl\ience, and comprising those narrou r -Qjinded men wh© want to subjugate Hawaii to the U nited States, whether we gain or loose bv it. It appears that the Leō's utter* ances on Pearl River, instead of being taken in a manner, have aroused the alarm of those keen patriots who, ignoring oui: side of the question, view the annexation of these islands to the United States, only *n the light of the dollars they may reap thereby, and consider it already as a fact, not as a poSBibility. Therefore the Ban Francisco agents of the patriotic and specAilative ring have seut orders td ihe 4> P. C. Advertiser, ,> to awake up on the matter.. But the poor old lady. who did not dare piek up the subje6t wheit» the Leo first did, eannot now find any argument of her own, and is obliged to build on the very text and words ofher San Francisco correspondent. It i8 true, she go: s thus far, that "liUle children and some other peeple should not play with edgcd t0045"... . but that just fits the 44 Advertiser and its Amenean nng, for it is they playmg with the edged tools, whieh ean cut both ways. As for Hawaii 4, having made her bed and having to iie in it," that is all bosh and nensei)Bc. If the bed does no longer continue to be comfortable, it is our duty ~10 seek another oiie, and there is no ' foolishness" in advocating that idea as we did and will continue to do, here and «broad, «nd our position has bi en found sound except perhaps in thc opinion of that ring who havo inade fortunes in Calif«rnia, on our pugars, through the protection of the United Bt:ites, and who now iear li>Bing their sweet and' jji!t ijjonopt>ly. fiut weshall never tire of rej»eating that Amcrica has brok<*n faith with us in matter of the McKinlev Bill versus our Recipru4Mty Treaty. and the only point we agree in with the is that we must look out to try to better our circumstances, although not by chi}dishly sticking to the old state of things or to br«ken allian&s, not by mere]y trying to obtain "Bomt po»ible &uodifications tn the UnUfd Btates Uriff\ w etc.. but, on ibe «oatmry t by soldly studying ihe poßsibi)i--of iiew markets. Of course, if we cannet find any . Mff oull«t Uien w* ahal! have to iii «ur ü bed; M bul» if we ean i or obtain by proper di«lbtr and bettar marketa, one a« sood, or any

infe] ior one in whirh . oi:r. ■IoBS< 1 f wouhl be less than the yresent one. we mav just as well act on the sugg?stion "to al)andon the Ame i market entirely,"-—none oJ our planters would object to that if the cash balance was on their side, —and in that 'case, who would suffer froin the change, but the commerce of the United States and not ours ? Mr. Blaine may very well say that "he" will not stand any foolishness and discrimination" against American pretentions and exclusiveness, but with all his talent, he must condescend ,to consider the question as we do here, under shape of some very suggestive figures: We exported last year to the United States. about 242,161,000 pounds of sugar, (valued before the new tariff, at about f13,000,000) 9,669,000 j)ounds of rice [valued $451,000], some bananas, wool, hides, tallow, coffee. etc, [aggregate value 259,643 J, making an exact total of f10,810,070, the grent bulk of whieh is sugar. Ia exchange. what we imported froni the United States, free of duty by treaty, was to the value of 3,162,000 only, whifch are not afiTected by tariff changes. Now, supposing that the pn>duction for export and the wants for imports remain the same, 242,00<J.000ft5. of sugars exported this year will bring in only $7,500,000, thtts giving us a lost of 5,750,000, out side of the possible fluctuation of comniercial values.—a very bad "bed" indeed ! But if. by going to another market, weean obtain, as it seems possible, for our sugars, the same or nearly the same amount as wē did get from America before the tarifF, thus avoiding this* loss of over five miliion,could we not afford "abandon the Amenean market entirelv." for the sugar, without fear of any ik suspensive clause" reta?iation, or even at the expense of paying American dutics on our rice. bananas, and other minor produce if we eould not also eell those advantagously elsewhere ? whi!st, on the other liand, if we could not obtain our impcrts anv cheaper fron% elsewhcre, (an open question) conld we not afford to continue inaj>orting those three inillionBof merchandisefrom theStatt s, whieh woukl furnieh our honie governiuent a new revenue of ten per cent or rnore, to be paiu bv the iiierchants ou tho Atneriv:Ui side ? The question is tliorefore not onr of r..reats hihl menaee, īuil siinply m ('ālui f-tudy of farln nnd liguri> (' m we er nr,f. get better markeis, lu tter i»riee, in Cauiida, Aew Zealand or Au6tra!ia, l'orour produee ? 4 lf so, Mr. Blaine and thc "Advertiser" Hng had better oons(der on what side the v, fooHBhness n will be, aud see whether the larger portion ef the u disas\rous quence" will not bo on the other side? %We bave no ! ereenal ifiterest in the matter farther than the riotic deaire to help our countrv, and we wiah a onlin elucidHtion of h!1 the at>|MM:ts of the tjuehti«)n. In th« )tteanwhih\ the lii>t )<oint •»f aur po»itiwn rcmains inUrt:' % 'No treaty« no ceasion nf Pe«rlj liarbor !'* Tha* t. ttie Lko is npnrfriatrd abraad. and ia recogn»*fd a* author* ity €iuiong both Hawauan* and fureigt»««rß. Our iuereasing litt or oaah Bubtcriiert ecbu«», yes. j