Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 258, 13 August 1891 — ABOUT TREATY PROVISION. [ARTICLE]

ABOUT TREATY PROVISION.

Tii.e project of so rerisingv.ouF Trc.ily with tbe United States ae to ruin our natioiial independence, Beeins to Jie very near the hearts of tbe sugar ring. and especially of the misBionary section of the ring. The uusk behind whieh tbey seek to compass this end, has suflfered at the hands of thpse more honest than they, with the result that «everal deep and wide gashes thereio reveal the hideous features of the oid hag of Free Trade, beneath whose petticoats those self styled patriots have taken shelter. The hist©ry of this nroyement dates from the earlv part of 1889, wheh ' oTir Minister to Washington, ever jealous in promoting the interests of the sugar ring, brought the matter to the attention of the American Government, and as a sequal to that fact,- eame to Honolulu in June following v of the now juBtly infamous "Bayonet Treaty' ? in hie head, whieh was afterwards tranBferred to paper. The ineidents attending and following the publication of that draft, are 11 fresh in the public memorv, It is not forgotten how a majority of tbe Cabinet atonce repudiated the "bayo net" clause, and lost themselves in the of their eflforts te explain bow"tfet clause got into the draft. The people of the countrv have not forgotten how the same majority, during the absence of the fourth meaiber of the Cabinet, sought to ccerce the King into fiignmg an authority to Minister Carter to * negotiate" a treaty in the words of that draft, from whieh the publie clamor in thiscountry hadforced them to expunge the "bavonet clause." The King's refuaal to be bo coerced, the return of the fourth member of the Cabinet from America, the running fire of hot shot and hotter words between his eolleagttes and he, in his eflforts to thwart their treaty scheme, aTe all parts of very recent history. So in the short period of the Legislative Session of 1891, during whieh' the three Ministers on the one side, and one on the other, again fought over the gory field, while the forced resignation of the three ? followed by the unforced resignation of the one were scenes that marked the dying hours of that unholy treaty project. Yes, that project was justly killed, and ceremoniously buried. But the ghouls of Ihe missionary eamp, in flagrant violation of the sanctity of sepulture, dug up thecorpse, placed it in their political incubator, and nave ever since been engaged in tbe effbrt to galvanize the loved cadaver into life. But the dear departed, with a persistency worthy , of Pharoah'B mummy, repels Iheu 1 pioue ministrations, and sleeps on.

Let U8 look at the ostensible objects of those disiiitereBted' patriots, antl observe how nearly iiconfortus to the tmblic interest, — and then, }et us inquire whether, if the object be tojerab!e, the mtans pro£>oBed ar«? such as to aUain that end. Uoleei their profeBBed aimē have

elude<s our mental grasp, thpy seek to bring abont the £bsolutely free interchange of all natura! and manufactured products v of either country, with tbe other,—exceptmg iiquor, opium, and such articies as either country»ay prohibit the importation of. Where would such a conditibn leave us as to revenue ? While our present treaty admits free of duty. nearly all American man u laeiuree, yet we deri ve oonsiderable revenue frotn a,.tariff nppn their ready-made c!othing. carI riages, certain classes of furniture, and some other artieles of less prominenee iii the lest, — free trade of course jsvould deprive us of that* revenue, and to that extent necessitate an i ncrease of taxation. " i What would be our advantage from the right to send all our products into their ports, duty free ? j As our products now appear,' we | •ean think of nothing we now pro* duee, except wool and tobacco, or are at all likely to raise nr produce, that does not enjoy the ri?ht of free entry into the United States. The list admitted bv the present treaty is as follows: Arrow-root. castor oil. bananas, nuts, vegetables (dried and undried, preserved and unpreserved) hides and skins (undressed), rice, pulu, seeds, plants, shrubs and trees- BUgar (unrefined), syrup of sugar, melado, molasses and tallow. In addition to the foregoing liet, coftee is free, by act of Congress, and we ean think of no other produce of our soil, available for export. that is not also free, with the above exception of wool and coffee, whieh is not now generatly Droduced here.

Therefore, what need is there of oue admitting free any more American, products. and further crippling our already insnfficient rev* emie, when no compensatory feature, in the way of admission of our productB, ig to be had ? or, to put it in other words, of what avail is it to us, that the list of free goods should be so extended as to em-| brace score of articles that we eannot produce, or if j)roducable at all cannot be exported at a profit- ? The answer is,tbereis positively no benefit; but only an injury to be derived by us from such an expansion of the list of mutually free goods. But here eomee in the littlejober of the sugar patriots. They agree, that by securing absolute free trade, they ean refine their sugars attheir mills, and, by sending refined sugars directto theAmerican consumer, ean shake off the shacklee of the Sugar Trust, and market their wares at a handsome profit There are many arguments against the soundness of that proposition. One is, the expense involved in loeal refining. We all know that new and expeasive machinery would be required for that pHrpose. and it eeems improbable that any but the strongest plantations would be able to bear such expense. Then, we need not be told that, with all machipery provided and in plaee» the very exnense of the refining procss muet exceed the cot«t <jf the same procees in Ainerica. It is follv for us to hope to eoii'iu-ie wiih A:nerica in any i branch of inanufaeturing, whether| it is ihe refimng uf sug;\r c>r any i t-hitig else. I

At present. whiie unretlned eugaw lioiu any country cnters the

.United Statcs free, the refined ariiele is Bubjeet to one and one-balf per cents per Dound. or tbirty dollftrs per ton. We have all heard the howls frotn the refinerg of the Union, tbc e£Tect, that this -rate of duty is inßufiicient for their nroteetion, and are demanding a higher rate. What are the proepects in thaxdirection? We know that CongresB Rave the existing rate beca use :it was āeeiueā an adequate protec-, tion to refiners, and that even a re-! puhliean proteetionist ConKress| \vould hear of 110 higher fjgures | We haz-ird fhe opinion that tiiis I rate will not be increased t for the people have had. and are having, a good taste of German refined sugar, whieh is laid down in San Franciseo at a considerable reduction from the prices of Coast reflneries. Itis therefore highly iinprobable thut Congress. even if disposed in that direction, will dare to increase this duty, aud thus play into the hands (and pool;ets) of the infamousSugar Trust. But the probabilities are all m favor of a reduction of that duty to a point where Ēuropean refined sugars will flow freelv into the Auierican mnrket.

If the foregoing c«ndition i)btains, what will be the measure of ben«fit to be derived by oiir refining pianters? They wili find after the expense of erecting QOBtly refining plasts have been incurred, that they Btill cannot conopete with the cheaper iivachinery and labor of Europe, and should the proposed treaty be put through for thie object, we will tlien find we have mortg»ged our birthright for the purpose of securing to a few rich planters an illusory benefit whieh ean never uiaterialize

But suppose ail the foregoing arguraent to be faulty. and unfounded in truth and logic; and suDpose the planters' mills all equipped with refineries, and sending their refined sngar into America duty free, and they again revelling in the enormous dividends of the recent past, while all outside the gilded circle continue to groan and sweat as they have always done, while the nabobs corrall the cash; picture the smile on the phiz of eaeh sugar king r whieh even the inhuman crack of the 6lave-drivers whip cannot chase frorn*his lips, — and all brougbt about by free refined sugar under an auiended treaty. Le"t us now ask, what is to prevent Congress from at any time| opening the same doors to the re-1 finer other lands, just as it opened the doi>rs tothe unrefined sugars of other lands, through the medium of the inuch abused McKinley bill ? We have had, the bottom knocked out of the existing treaty by an act of Congress. Though we should secure eueh amended treaty as to restore our lotjt advantage(and such a condition is impossible under any treatv amendmenU), what guaranty shall we hav« tbat a sccond Congrcss will not repeat the knocking-out procesB?

•'Kui," Brv our friemis, the enemy« u Congress will «ot do tbat : again. M Go to, ye pupile of po)itiohl ki nderg i rteiiB, what know ye of Amepiean poliliee or thf»ir prosmvts. Ye have 30 befogged your meiilāl visionB wilh pouring over your »!ave-labor contracts, that ye know no mcre of poiilioil prol»ibi» litiees ;n Asi.ericii. than a HutWntot knows of Iltaveu. Moro aiion.