Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 280, 15 September 1891 — The Bulletin's Inconsistencies. [ARTICLE]

The Bulletin's Inconsistencies.

NKW <EKIK>. Now about that Kohala Chinese raeket. The BuUetin first started to give, on tliis evea(; some unforiunate aeeount --whieh made it ; look as if the Chinese immigrants liad a nal grievance againet Mr. Aseu ; " their empioyer. This was done under the spur of the moXiient; but ; after reflection, the BulletMs little minds were so horrified I to find that, for onee, they had u apparently" taken up the cause of some poor deluded laborers against their employers, riz. The patrons of the Queen Street sheet, —that in a wild spirit of penanee for such a misd<eed, they quickly 4< solicited jr and published Aseu's own version of the matter ; ..; how &ind but is it not queer that ihe <4 orb" should suddenly grow so Tery solicituous of "eommon fairness" and u simple j ustice ?" and 4his, only wheh something happens that might injure its wealthy pattobs ? ... would it have been so considerate and cautious had the situation been reversed, and a meslurred by a false report ? 3iowever, the Bulletin evidently gloats on the fact that Aseu's interested version intends to show that the Ohinamen had no real grievance against their employers. €an laborer ever have u real grievances" in the estimate ? ~... But where the eomie note <3omes in, is when the orb gets angry at the Leo's hint about that paper undertaking Aseu's defence. Now, the Buūelin r s policy is sufficiently established by the facts of its going voluntarily to the trouble fl soliciting" Aseu's version, not Tvaiting for him or the man who writes behind him to oflfer a vin<lication. Your defence, poor Dan, is entirely too thin, and the Adrer tiBcr, by publishing its latest impartial correspondence from Kohala, in the face of Aseu's denials, shows more independence, more true journalistic spirit, and more consistency of character than the BxMetin ever did. Dan, don't seize every opDotunity of showing how devoid of eommon Bensevou are/ No! Beloved BuUetin! The Chinamen at Kohala had no * 4 real grievance" against their employers, and nothing to eomplain about their happy situation, except that the Pactolus has never been sofar from them, us gincc that deris;vely nauied bark has landed them bn the sliore of tlieir present Houri.shing situation. Woula you not ieel happy and sati*fied'Vmirsc!f. īlke

them, jjovial little Ban, if you had agreed to work like a*slave for $15 a month, and then sj.iddenly discover that $3.75 are deducted from it for a return trip, snd $1.25 for the passage from Cuina, leaving net $10 a month to live on ? I£ut man of the unfortunates of Kohala, —who you were so scared to "apparently?: defend, —have wilh them women ano. children, for whose pro-

4j>ortion of passage money 'they also |have to pay, so that quite a number really get even less thau $8 a monlh, to feed themselves x aifd family. Think o/it! $8 a month, when you know of so many poor laborers who cannot live for $8 a weekl! And, to this, add that rice, their only food, is 8 cents a pound in Kohala, and there is not even a blade of grass aroitnd, for the miserable wretches to mix up with i what little rice ean be proeured on less than $2 a week !! Do you think that box or two of crackers aeeideatal]y distributed on a veranda to hundreds of jEamishing souls, ean remedy the evil ? And don ? t you think thai the jesuitical excuse ©f not attending to the eomplaints becausē it happened to be Sunday, is worthy of the Bulletin's idiosyncracies ? G® to* you false friend of the poor, you false lover of justiee ! Your utterances are treated for what they are worth, by the public who refuses to believe any moreinyou, and to be led by y«u ! (To be cOntinued, as long as the Bulhtinfurnishes text.)