Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 177, 22 April 1891 — Answer of the "Leo" to Bystander. [ARTICLE]

Answer of the "Leo" to Bystander.

, IV.—We deny most emphatieally that Mr. J. O, Carier ever was "a very enth»Biastic member of the Natipnal Party." Dear Bystander, the next time you take the trouble to contradict the humble Leo, do try to kn«w what you are talking about. Don't you remember that J. 0. Carter refused to declare himself for the AntiChinese Union and its successor tbe Mechanics' Union, at times when a word froni him might have had great weight and perhaps helped the popular clnsses to obtain the reforms they were elamouring for ? Mr. Carter may not bel«ng to the Revo!utionary Reform he is reputed too egotistical and self-opinioiiat«d to belong te unytbing outside of his own persona!ity; but his connection with Brewer and Co, and his aflinity with Bishop & Co.. are sufficient proof that he never was nor ean be a national man, the same as his words and actions have proven that h« is nō trtie fiiend of the natives, and, in a like rQanner, his nefari©us influenee over one at least of the national elect noblea, who is now theref§re discarded by the party, jshows how Mr. Carter is/ consi- | deredbythe true men of the naiienal party; but this is again or.e of your Bide isBues. . V—We a!so deny that "among the chief irnmediate causes of the revolution, were aonae of tht bitter ract articles published by tbe •'Elele," etc.. this assertioß, uear Bystander t is a poor evasion, a fl i mey excuse,a lawyer's dotlge for endeayouring to shield and condone ai> illegal revolut:<in, the organiziition of whieh was start4»d -Tor 4 yeard before those art icles had ever been pubiijjhed; and you do ignore that. long Lcfore the articles to, ihe

promoter *of the conspiracy were so afraid «f the natives, that irone were reeeived into the s:cret, uātil the last momeot. But this iigain being foreign to your eel t-assu mc<l task of iSgbting the Leo, we shall here foliow 3'ou only to the extent of asking you one question: if. according to your insinuatiQn, Mr. Testa ought not to be retained in Government * situation for havi»g written ephemerous class articles, idest for defending his countrymeri in theirown territory, then what do yoc, think of so many men aciuailv retained in our civil-ser-vrca? who have made themselves notoriously ol>noxious by partizan actions and expressions ? Mr. Testa is a clever native and a staunch member of the national part'v,i ināe irea tua, and that is why, even under the i> resen t ministration, a plaee cou!d not be found for him. So. right again the Leo ! i ■ Vl.—The diininulive size of our eolumns forbids us to foliow vou at present in vour reniaining sideissues and wanderings, buo we do cballei'ge you to name all tl many of the most rabid adherents of the qld regiitic"- who you sav were kept by the revolutionary governm»nt of 1887, in " important and lucrative positions." We know that the thirst for oflice in your ranks was unquenchabie and that the impossibility of finding places in the liaciited civil service •f Hawaii, for the many hungrv | rifle-bearers of the day, created j a split whieh altimately brought the dowofall of your party but the context of the article you attack in the Leo never intended to blame the 'irevolutionary" Government for any men ot merit and 3apacity ! they may have appointed: but as iwe distinctly atated, we d® object ito having g©od billets filled,—at | the expcnse of tried and efficient i servants, —by men whose only title was merely to have run through the streets with an old blunderbuss on the shoulder. We never asked-as your party did for th< ir frier.ds,— that all the supporters of the national Reform shouid be provided with dffiees, nor even that some of them should obtai» situations for whieh they be unfit; but we do ask: lst. that merit and capaci|y be made the leading rule of app|3intments; 2d. that in cnse #>f equality of ment, preference be giv?n, by a ministrv whoclaims to be of the national party, to worthy adherents of that party and not to personal favorites of t'ne wfealthy and hostile faction; 3rd. that in case of equality of merit between a white man and a nKtive, pref«rence should be given to this last at an equal salary; 4th, we egpecially want to see the end of that scandalous systeni ®f personal favoritisni, by whieh obnoxious officiale, against whom a wnole populati©n may be clamoiing, are stubbornly keot in office, simply because they haj)p«n to be the fathers, unelea, sons or cousins «f snme wealthy famil}H coi»pact, Arid now, dear Bystander, au revoir!