Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 279, 14 September 1891 — OLLA PODRIDA. [ARTICLE]

OLLA PODRIDA.

■ v : ■; ■■.■■ ThC 4'XploitS flf "Rn.rflfnnt.pd I Rill" are a public scandal and have! .: roved the utter inefficiency and iucompetence of our J)olice force. 'fhe native poliee do very well as wardens of the street, or to regulate jany disorders that is in sight, and i ihe highly paid white captains, i alleged detectives, and bar-room i roust abouts who are put over them, āre equally e s good, but no better. But when it comes to the cunning class of criminals who are lārgely on the increase, such as 6neak thieves, burglars, smugglers, and the like, our poliee are utterly incompetent to eope with them. A large sum of money is appiopriated for the poliee service and "the public have a rigbt to expect <some protection, but the successiul burglaries of the pass few months prove that this is an easy territory for that class of criminal io work. _A poiiee officer. to be <6fficient, must have some previous training in a school of practical expeiienee and iinder those who aK ready know the ropes; such a training cannot be had here, and we -would suggeßt the Marshal that it would be a wise and beneficial jtnove for him to captain his poliee with three or four trained men irom the New York or Boston de*jpartments ©r from Scotland Yard, Londcn. Such men eouM be casily obtained, and their knowledge ofdetective work would be saffi<?ient for our present necessities; they would also be the instructers of our younger poliee. In the British East Indies, the native poliee are under the instuction of men irom Scotland Yard who have organized a very fine service. ]

The sugar question still vexes the mind of our planters and fact°ra, and causes them no little anxiety, for the outlook is not bright. While generally opposed io them from a political standpoint, the Leo sympathizes with the eugar men to a certain extent f#r, notwithetanding their selfish greed, they represent the chief industry of the country upon whieh our prospeiity has hitherto depended, (we hope for diversified industries in the future upon smaller farms). What is the remedy for the present i s\tuation ? there appears to be Will treaty revision help the matter ? gloomy for sugar. Vhat will or ean hedone ? no one inōws as yet. The principal sugar countnes have &lways made treaties with the United States whereby. their sugars enter free, so tbat when the President imposes dutaeB on the sugar of sOch oo»3®tri€B as have not made treatiefs it will not have mueh effect ujiop. the present market. So #re have no advantage to hope for on that ecore. We might ask the United States to admit oiar w<cshed BUgar free, but the differenee of value in favor of washed sugar is only about A cent whieh wouUl be

nearly consumed in extra labor, &c. So tbat won't count. We eannoi hope to obtain a bounty, for it is almost certain that the bounties in the United States will be abolished, or will surely not be extended to a" foreign country. Were the United States to increase the duties on refined Bugar from 1 cent to say 2| or 3 cerits and allow us to refine sugar and send it in free, there would then be some hope, but that point was fought so hard when the McKinley bill was under discussion, that such a project cannot be revived. In whichever way you view it the prospects for any further large profits on]sugar are decidedly slim, and those p!antations that are not yet free ofdebt or upon an eeonomieal basis will have to succumb. The only solution of their troubles is in the labor question, and we do not pretend to say as yet how that is to be managed.

Treaty revision ofiers no prospect of help to the sugar men. But a new treaty with the United States must be made and that very soon. That country has done us a great injufetice, but it has not been direct or intentional; our reiations with them happened to be in conflict with a new fiscal policy whieh they were adopting towards tbe whole world. We consider the present treaty as nullified and obsolete, all the benefits we enjoyed under it being cancelled by the operātion of the

McKinley bill. But the United States is our national market and must continue to be sc, and our treaty relations with them must be renewed for our muiual benefit. With free sugar guaranteed to America by statute as well as by numerous treaties with countries other than ours,, our benefit from the treaty is nil. On the other hand, America now enjoys the entire benefit, and we are enjing the entire burden of that compact. But the United States have always been generous and in a new treaty we have reason to hope that tbey will not ask more than they will

concede,