Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 169, 10 April 1891 — PEARL HARBOR. [ARTICLE]

PEARL HARBOR.

When in 1887, our Treaty oi Reciprocity with the United Statee was renewed* with an additional conceBsion, however, on the part ©f the Hawaiian Government, whereb} r Pearl Harbor was ceded to the U«ited States for a navalj depot and eoa!ing station, this ces-' sion was clearly understood to be »>nly as a kl quid jiro quo". for the <H?onomical advantages secured to our people by that same tre^ty; and, from the correspondence exe hanged at the time between the t wo governments, it was also positively gtipulated that this ces-' nion would only last a#-le»g the treaty would, or, in other ■words, as l©ng as, by its working to mutual advantage, it would not be found advisable to terminate an'd denounce that treaty. But since 1887, the conditions are already vastly clianged, and the tariff bili has dealt a <Ireadfnl blow to the utility of the treatv' in what concerns this country. Oan it thCrcfore be the polk:y of this K»tion tc» continue gi ving to the U. S. aIL the advantage» from our side, when we have been made to loose the benefits for whieh we had confiented to | grant those advantages ? Tlie question is growing to be a prohlem, thc responsibility of whieh cannot be shirked by the Qucen's advi6ers, all the more so, as it is known that the U. S. CongreBS has lately passed an appropriation of $700,000 for starting the improvements of Peari Harbor, whereby the U. S. Government will take effective possession of that harbor. Kow, before one dollar ofthis money is allowed "to be spent, the Leo will utter the first note of protest against the American oecupation of Pearl Harbor, under the existing conditions. | The famous McKinley bill, ad-1 mirably as it may be suited to | the fiscal policy of the States, di— rectly injures our main indnstry and entirely vitiates all the advantages we had under oi,r Treatv of Recipr«city. To be sure, Oongress passed an act of courtesy, confirming their treaty with us and platonically protesting of their intention not to injure us; but that, iri ro way, restores the exclusive ljenefits whieh we were to enjcy under our Treaty, in exchange for tbe grant of Pearl 'Harbor, nor wili itrestore the lowered price of sugar, whieh will inevitably fol!ow the operation of the new Tariff. Pratically now, we are Bimply on a par with all other sugar producing countries, mmus a portion of our territory, instead of being privileged and protected as we were led to expeet when we gave tbat territory away; thus the United States cf Araerica, who liave stopped giving unto us wbat they had promised, ought not to think of taking it awav from us, as they must well know that if our present.treaty is ever agaui renewed, it will be nnd< j r the nerai reciprccity claose of the MaeKiniey Bil). similar in fact to that just made with Brazil or to those to be made with ©ther countri( s. but that bill does not contn!iipir t te the session of harbors or oxtr;v territoriftl rights, as part of tlie system of reciprocity. Moreover, we may j:erhaps not care to rr the treaty at sll, but may find it more advantageous to make a

treaty with Canaaa for our But even if the treaty i* renewe£_ with ihe Uriited SLates, we certainlv māf elaim the right to bavfe it under the sam« condition, as are made in the other American reciprocity treaties, without cession of harbor or territory, our large and important trade w©uld warrant and justify it; therefore, even Americans cannot expect the session of Pearl Harbor to be renewed! untess al3 a consideration for some very important consession on their part. If on the contrary, our treaty was with Canada. what just right would A merica even have to a naval would eall the attention, therefore, ©f the present Cabinet to the plaim facts, i. e., the cession to the United States was not perpctual, and as that country has so altered her tarifF legislation as to coinpletely destroy all the benefits for whieh we gave the consideration, we deem it rather premature for their Congre ~a to vote nioney, through t}ie expenditure of whieh an cxcuse could be raiscd for holding part of #ur territory; and it is the plaln duty of the Qiuen's Ministers, the defenders of our national rights, to object to the unjusi application of our treaty in respeet to Pearl Harbor. That harbor is a grand prize, and it is incumbent ©n our statesmen to it and to keep it for a more va 1 ua« ble and desirable consideration than the United States has yet giyen us. But we are afraid th»t Hawaii be caught napping, unless our administration see their way clear, to give notice to the United States to terminate the reciprocity treaty of 1887, and begin immediate negotiations for a new treaty similar to that recently concluded between United States and Brazil under the reciprocity clause of the McKinley Bill. We shali continue to agitate this point, for we consider it most important and serious.