Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 273, 4 September 1891 — OLLA PODRIDA. [ARTICLE]

OLLA PODRIDA.

It is vsaid that many people read Le<> wiih a cohtemptuous elevation of their nostrils and pretend to say that its utterances have no •>ignijicanc.es and no weight; thāt i>ush is a orank and. his co-editors ean be annihilated by a u shoe fly ?; flourish oi tlie pen from little Dan of the BvUefin or a tpothless mur,nur from the Silurians of the Ad,rrti*fr. But all the same the pub(ie read the paper, most of them openlv, and many of them sneaklnglyy and the majority of them are impressed with the force and carnestness of the Leo's articles and the unanswerable arguments ef its political f uth. The Leo has as many readers as either the Bulletin or Adxertūcr together and is firing no random shots, but is advancing a well planned skirmish line for the eampaign of the national oohorts that hope to march to victory next February. īn an "011 dit" oi its issue of the iBth, the Leo did an injustice to a young Hawaiian who deserves our respect and sympathy rather than tannts. As we have takett pains to discover from a personal investigation, the clerk referred to, who was recently dismissed from the Postal Bank, not by the cabinet, but by the chief of the bureau, has been the victim of gross injustice, and the unprincipled spite of the man in whose power he happened to be. He has filed an afiidarit of the circumstances with the cabinet and repeatidly begged for an investigation in order to clear himself of the base calumniesofhis villifier; bat through the inertia and apathy of the cabinet he has not yet succeeded in getting a hearing. His intended departure for Samoa is not a desertion of his family but to seek the mean of their sunport, whieh is denied him here bv an

unjust adminiBtration. We are pleased to learn that his ix>sition in Samoa will be a lucrative one, andthat when his finances are recouped he hopes to return from his enforced exile to the land of his birth, his famil} r and friends. What glory does the cabinet hope to ajpquire by thus practically driviug ttiie young man into exile, after a faithful service to the govemnaent pf.over 10years; and what does the cabinet hope to gain by their studied . inja«tice- -to youix» Hawaiiana generally. The 2ate P.. M. General without authbrlty of the cabinet, or without just cause, dismisged four young men from the Post Office as victimß to liis per«onal sploen. This was an abitrary abuse of his -pdwer anel should have keen promptJy repudiated by the cabinet; it was not done, and a haal precedent has been established Whieh leaves government clerks at the mercy of their immediate eliief. A gross iujustice was donc to young HawaiiaoK. and their familiea; afnd wfc caiinot\inderstand why the cabinet have paeee l itlvis hy ' -- / J '

unnoticed, while a large circle of the fnends of these four young men have been clatnoriiig' for jußtiqe. Can it be that thē cabinet reaīly mean to debar all Hawaiians from the ci*vil service ? If so an indignant National Party will eall to strict account for it when the Legislature meets!. '■.■■■■ \ For the benefit of the Bxdletin menagerie and the Silurians of tlie Adixrtuer who object to the sentiment of "Hawaii for the Hawaiians" we would eall their attention to the head-lines of a newspaper publislied in Sydney N. 8. W.-— u Thc Ihilleiia, — The Naiional imlia.i Newspaper, *— u AitBtmlio ! for, i the And we would ask their opinion about it. Thurston's interview v?ith the S? n Fr,incisco reporter reads very nicely, witli the exception of his spiteful little tiing at what he calls the Bush~Wilcox faction. He ridiculouclv exaggerates its iuiportanee but he has struck the right chord. and one upon whieh ihe Naiional Party have heen harping, when he pictures *he possibilities of our minor induslrics and the opportunity of securing a favorable market for our diversied fruit products. But treaty revisioft upon such a basis would not be favorable to «e under the present administration. What could we gain by farther relinquishing duties up-~ on American goods in order to gain a free market for our amall products, while lands are not available to that class of producers. We should be the losers.

In defiance of the popular party of all legislation. and of the pronounced opinions of oiir leading nien, the cabinet persist in selling and leasing large tracts of land under such conditions that thev

ean only be obtained by thealready gfuttonous sugar planter. If these lands were offered to homestead settlers, and their occunation laeilitated as was contemplated by recent legLslation. there might then be Bome prpspect of a considerable production of fruit and other articles of commerce that might make an item worthy of consideration in the revision of our treaty with the United States.

J udge Dole in his able address to the Bocial Science Club, has clearly expressed all the advantages to the coimtry in cutting up the pnblic domain into small tracts for homegtead settlers, and he rightly saye that it is one of the most seriotu? questions of out political econoniy. This must be a self evident axiom to any one who gives the subject any thonght and it is to be regrotted that the present, administration have so little foreaightand stpl less abllity to deal with this question as it should be done. It is Very | evident that homestead settlers; emall farmers, and the minor pmdiK»te, that are bound to be an portant feature of our futurc ex* portB, will all have to wiat Ull ihe country has an admimstratiqn is intelligent and patrlotic enofcgl| to try and build up the weaHh aiid prosperity ©f our paraciise. *' : ' - ••