Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 176, 21 April 1891 — Answer of the "Leo" to Bystander. [ARTICLE]

Answer of the "Leo" to Bystander.

The fir]pt asserti6» of the u Leo" in answer to vt ßygtander". is that we do intend to stand by our principles, sueh as were expounded in ©ur previous article, '■ Ji;stice and Equaiitv versus Color and Party," and we think that none of the weak argumeuts adduced by 4 ' Bystander," ean prove any contradiction or fiaw in our position, provided that tiie facts are viewed in their |»roper ]ight. ■"■Bystander , V... we regret to sjiv, 011 the eontraryj distorts the- facth, or starts on side i«sues to suit his purpose, a» we propose to show by following his argunient soction by section. i 1. The case of Mr. T hrum—and not Oat as we inadvertentlv had il. —from what l»ystander ,? hiinself states. is most elearly and imdeniablva ease ofcolor discrimin-1

aiion eoupled with party favoritism. ■(«ind the wrong partv at that), just as our article mcant to protest «i<T;iinst.Of courso,thcfact that he was born here 'eloe» ''noi operate agai nst liiiii." but iiis bcing a white inan i«.TealJy the on 1 v reason why he Hhoukl liave obtained $ 125 for exactly the sanie work that his Hawaiian prede<;essor did successfully fjr $75, and we elaim that the " ia salary is not the :neasure of dif!erence in ability," n@t even in the u opinion" of the P. M. General, who, is at any rate, is a very poor judge of merit, except that of being subservient. Me. Hart <J id l'ne same work for severaj ycars at $75 ; if the work w r as worth more. why did he not got more? We say, because he was | a Hawaiian. If his low salary was a "measure" of his competency, | then why was he retained so long.! and, oniy when he had proven his his capacity and honesty was he I kicked out of officc, and because he was not servile as he was wished to be ? Mr. Thrum never belonged to tlie Kational Party, no more tlian the P. M. G. ; as a party measure then, in the spirit of the revolutionary Iteform faction, Mr. Wundenberg ought to have been dismissed from his. elhee long ago, yet he is still there stubbornly maintained bythe very aian who w-s supposed to be tne leader and exponent of the Nationai Party and principles Mr. Thrum ought never to have been appointed unless no competent man could have been found among the native or foreign meml>ers of the National Party.

this case o»ly proves two things, that the natives employed by governinent are forced to w*ork for starvation wages, such as no decent foreigner would sell hisi talent3 for; second, that Hart, the native, being dis{uissed because he belongs to onr P,arty, and the whiteman chosen because he does not, we are justified in asking whethei- that is the justice weought to expec.t from a Cabinet who assumes Kational tendencies. and whether the case is not one of dif«riminating favoritism ? Thus, in spite of Bystander*s contradiction, there is ny "mie-Kiaiemeni" in our art iele on this first pcint. 11. In ti)is section. v.e first elaim that tliero has never been in ttiis country a cns«» when any govcriim(:nt olliee ever went g!«g P ; '' Bystardcr" mnst persor' aily know better and cught iv

voucihFafe fronr ex|rerience that, ft r every yacant offiee in the iingdoui, there are Always d*zens of applicants; Bystander therefore wiifully fa]sifies the facts, in order to make a point against the Leo, and he is just as incorrect in talking about Mr. G. W. C. Jones. who he cails Potter's predeeessor ' i in the Board of IlealUi, and of whom he says was a " most popular man with and considerate of the rights of Hawaiians"; Mr Jones' native uame sufTiyes lo show what "his popularity is; moreover, if that niekname was not explicite enough, it will sufFice to note that Mr. Jones belongs to thc. Revelutionary Reform, who never,-was friendly to the na-1 tives; and no nian will ever be po- j pular with tne Hawaiians, who| onee afīiliated to that political party. tlie party who inscribe race and color discnniination in their Constitution, by givitig indisc.riminatejly to forcigners of Caucasian ori-

gin rights whieh did not belong to t.henī and are not allowed foreign ers in any other eonntry, whilst at the Siirae timo the Asiatics ;md curtailin's the inhprent rights of * the mitiveB in their own l«Rid, in palnam mam ! Thprefore, this statement, as ev£ry other one hitherto made by Bystander, is incorrect, and further more, the case of Jones, is clearly a Bide-issue, entirely foreign to the subject 'and to our article. At this point, we shall note that we were flOt aware and do not believe that Mr. Potter "resigned by ordcr, spe • cially to make room fbr a native.", If he didresign ü by order," then he was dismissed; but, if he was dismissed from one departinent, by what mystery has he been taken up into another department ? ETow ean he be at th® same time "unfit ; ' here and k4 able" elsewhere ? And how is it that a gubaltern officer like the Secretarv of the Board of Educa-

tion, Bhould have assumed such a grave regponsibiiity as to take up into pnblic Bervice a man just dismissed from another branch, and presumably for good cause ? ls it nqt because Mr. Bmith knew that Mr. Ptttter was a particular favorite of the Presiderit of his Board,—although he be al»sent, —or because | Smith and Potter bel»ng to the eaiae clerico-political party ? Or both reasons ? And very strange to say. Bystander carefully avoids to tackle the question of why should Potter be allowed one-fifth more salary than bis predccessor; but at any rate,—does not tnis case poini out to glaring favoritism and t« undue protection from the reform party, all the way through ? could not a competent man be found nmong the teachers or among the adherents of the national party, to fill the vacancy at tfie Board of Educatioh ? As f<)r Hon. Smitlir being <4 a special frien<l to- ihe native penole," that is all rot, Mr. Bystander, for we all know what salaries Mr. Smith givcs to natite teachers and also that lfe Iy detested by all the teacbers in the Kingdom, who fear his petty tyranny and his antiquated narrow ndtions \r. Smi£h uught- to have joined his friend Wundenberg in suect retirement, had there been anyjustior in the administration; but this. dear Bystauder, is a;iother of your side issues. quitel foreign ■ to the **mis of the Lc»), you so '|.:ixulieai]y endeavored to correet.

in. T -Your ik prouaMy" aiul yov.r i 4: perhaps," oh BystaiU«r \ are i quite sal!icient ans'irers your own assertions r whieh r(iquire no discusfiion; h«werer, you are very kind to concede thalv Mr. Evans gat <l too mueh monev for his ser▼ieeon Molokai." Woll now ! who put him there, and why was he appointed ? You say noi because he u oamed a gun." and we never said S9 [see your article]; but, dear Bystandēr, tlon't be so jesuitical j you know perfectly that, although Evans, may not have carried a gun,—in Honolulu, —becauso at the timeß he may have heen somqwhere else, [and, by the way, as you seem to know all abi»ut it, is it because you did carry a gun yourself ?], vet the mere fact of his l)eing appointed to his ®fiice, at such an extraordinarv salar}% conclusively showti what party he did morally belong . to aiul how niueh value was set on his politica 1 servicos in oarrying a gun or otherwise. (Td bo Continue<l.)