Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 389, 15 February 1892 — The Conservative Party. [ARTICLE]

The Conservative Party.

The Atlyertiser hae found the tit!e the party of the future, ealU it the 4, ConBervative Party," and elaini it to he the party of "proand "preservation againat tbe party of anarchy. M For aai-' nine stupidity and monumeiUal lying the Advertiser takes the palm, when tbe %ue»tion ie poUtical. To aeeuee the Liherals of being the paiiy of anarchy is simply a wanton lie, whieh eannoi be supported by any quotation or argument, and we will disraipfl it with the eon- | tenapt it detserves. It is simply ndiculouB fpr the wrong-headed litt.lo m«n pf the Adrertiser to use his prVntef*« in detamatior oi such a Btrong and popular party as are the iliberals. It i8 an untenable pretension for the newly iotind conservative part? to eiaim to be the party of progress and pre§ervation. Let us examine the standing of both parties. First, the Überal Part}- in its platform, through Ka Lko, ,irnd by the utteranc*»B of its orators Uaa fairly demonstrated itself to be the party of progress and intelligent p6rception of the needs of the country. They dea?anded manhood suffrage, and to break down the barrier» of class dietinction whieh are being broken dowh in ewy part of the civili*ed world. Tiiey pPOteated against eoolie imraigration aa a diabolical pk»t for aoeial degeneratien, and they ādvo<»ted agHonltural indoatriM aoder oooperatkm with a ehrilMi 9«asantry. They advoot*ed * Ttm&j wiUi «d BtalaB vpea a ooamvdiil^^i JSm la fcoe* >iiw|wwM mi iM#y lim» mHmi w iMi UmealmMi bt no ii>tlholie<n tnd witk tfMl Aimi forail to puiāka i» iW gvoml pvo«p#Hty. Th?y pl«oH oa tMr aoUi tkk* who «m

eompeieai to cairy out the polie/ whieh they h*d ftdop4«d. Wafti*t ali thia in Ihe line of .prog?esB a»d preeervatioa ? But wh«t wm aad wiul ls ihk u Conservative Pftrty" whe pretead to he the oolr poee&h eanoam ef the €ouatry, The pkHonn of the Meehanka Union is oot to he oon* «dered t f»r that U repudUted alreedy. Aside frem that, we have uoev!denoe of the pHoeiple or p«rpoeee of the party. Bttt from Uie oharftder of thelr men, their huaineee aesoeiatioiiB aad known proclivities, it is easy todesignate tlM»ir policy. They are first and last sagar-bsrons, and interested ool? in thesaoeess of that industry, for whieh they are ready to wacri6ce every other industry, to cede territory under demeaning condition», | to s»srifioe civilisatien and Christian pwgrea& t and to render every thing in government, society/ and j naUonal development subservient| to sugar. They erected, and are j determined to maintain a barrierj between the poor man and the rich man, between capital lind labor, between plutocracy and <teiuocracy, whieh is a Rtep backward rather than forward ir< the eoeial devclop* ment of ihia civilized age. Tbey dare not announee it, but they secretly hope to secure an iramißration of eheap eoolie labor, without a thought or a care for the inevitable result that will bring the eheap i eoolie into active conpetition with all the induBtrial elaaaee and eventually supercede them. Apart from sugar and its allied interests ther have no thought or conception of a puhlie policv calculated to promote the general welfare of the nation and of all claBsee of people who have made their homes hert. i*««> but one ehannēl, sugar. coolies and dominat!on of the povernnient for their interests solely. Ig this conservatism ? h this progresB ? Ia this preservation?