Ahailono o ka Lahui, Volume I, Number 9, 20 January 1890 — Page 2Page PDF (1.20 MB)
Ma ke Kauoha.
Hoolaha Hoopaa Inoa.
E NOHO MAI ANA KA PAPA NANA KOHO o ka Mahele Ekahi, Apana Ekolu, no ka hoopaa ana i na inoa o ka poe koho, ma ka Halepaikau Raipela, ma Manamana, ma ke ahiahi Poakahi. Ianuali 14 mai ka hola 7 a 2 P.M., ma ka Poakolu, Ianuari 13, mai ka hora 7a 9P.M., ma ke ahiahi Poalima, Ianuari 17, mai ka hora 7 a 9 P.M. a ma ka auina la Poaono, Ianuari 18, mai ka hora 4 a 6 P.M. O keia mau halawai no ke kakau inoa ana e hoomau ia aku ana ma ia wahi a ma na manawa like no ua pule mahope mai a hiki i ka hoopanee loa ana.
Lunahoomalu o ka Mahele Ekahi, Apana Ekolu.
The National Herald.
Honolulu, Jan. 20, 1890.
A correspondent of the government newspaper claims that there “is no similarity” between the misappropriations of the old regime and those made or attempted by the present regime. Ah! We thought there was a latent similarity among all misappropriations!
THE electors of the third election district of Honolulu will meet to-night at half-past seven o’clock in the old armory on Queen street. Mr. A. Marques candidate for representative for that district on the national reform ticket will address the meeting. Several other candidates and popular speakers are announced to be present who will also address the electors present.
THE Advertiser has just discovered that a man must hold sugar stock to represent “sugar;” and that as Mr. W.O. Smith has sold or transferred his sugar stock he must not be called a sugar man any more. The Advertiser is sorry it made this discovery, because it fears it will reduce the government ticket to the political absurdity of whisky straight and prayers crooked! There need be no fear, good Advertiser, the people are pretty certain to stick to the euphonious title that first in with the facts, viz: that the government party has put forth a ticket representing “whiskey, sugar and prayers” straight through!
THE NATIONAL HERALD did not even intimate that Messrs. Young, Halstead and Schumann were “going to bolt because they were not nominated,” as asserted by the Advertiser. This is one of the places where the government newspaper should have overcome it hereditary trait of misrepresentation and told the truth. The opinion we expressed was that these three men were shabbily treated by their party and that they would have been far better nominees than such men as Smith, Cunha and Dillingham. Although we hold a high opinion of Messrs. Young, Halstead and Schumann as citizens of Hawaii yet we are sincerely glad they received the political “go by” at the hands of their friends ,- -they would have been hard men to beat, because they are so much better that the political principles or candidates of the present government ticket.
The general public awoke this morning to the fact that after all the bragging and bluster of the family compact organ, during the last few weeks, the governemtn party, which the family compact controls and virtually represents, is politically thin skinned. This touchiness on the part of the government party seems to be amplified and made more prominent by the past record of the “existing administration,” by the inherent weakness of the cause itself and by the lack of political ability displayed, up to the present time, in the organization and defence of the government party campaign. With its usual stupidity the party of promises has either passed by or has not seen the strongest point which could be made against the national reform party (for what political party is perfect!) and has hinged its whole fight upon an assumption that the national reformers are “reactionary” in design.”
Outside of this one cry the government party has nothing to offer, except daily personal abuse of candidates. Its demand that principles and measures be discussed has passed away, as did its first thought of political reform in 1887. Its present after thought of future reform will shortly fade away in like manner, should the government unfortunately win the coming election. The term “re-actionary,” as used by the government party, is translated by the intelligent elector as a fear of the loss of “political spoils” by the government party. The cry against those who have recalled the “truly good” to their prayers by rapping them over the political knuckles, is of no abail now, the family compact should have answered such charges when they were made and proved, in place of passing them by with silent admission.
The fact is that the government party has been daily trying political expedients and waiting for “something to turn up” in their favor. Being without either political head or platform the party of promises first accused the national reformers of stealing a platform not yet formulated on the government side. This charge not being a success, and the people’s cause growing stronger day by day on the past record of the party of promises, it was determined to publish daily the “good works” done by the government. This expediency lasted about a week. By this time either the “good works” had run out or the journalistic enthusiasm of the family compact had vanished as ddoth a government promise! There was but one thing left for the government party to fight with: this was personal abuse. The first fling made was about whiskey. On this point it is both the moral duty and political policy of the government party to keep profoundly and persistently silent. It is only through the forbearance of their opponents that high officials backed by moral heads of departments in the government have thus for escaped public exposure on the drinking question, which their official conduct has so richly deserved!
Nor is this all. After degrading their own political fight to a tirade of personal abuse, with the hope of drawing the national reform attack away from the past record of the government party, the government organ pleads that prejudice should not be created against andidates on either side, because such were concerned on the government side in the rebellions of either 1887 or 1889. A party that has continually condemned the rebellion ofone set of men in 1889 and has persistently claimed exemption for those who did the same thing more successfully in 1887, is at least illogical and inconsistent and may not be more patriotic than the revolutionists who failed afterwards. The national reform party condemns the principle of revolution in both instances, but holds at the same time that political blame should not attach to one period which does not attach to the other—both periods being instances of extra constitutional action, wherein principles and men were open to well merited blame. The revolutionists of both periods were to blame and are to blame; and those who insist on carrying out the revolutionary policy of 1887 in the face of the wishes of a majority of the people of all races, are still following a course which merits further blame and criticism on the part of those who favor constitutional government in the interest of the majority.
MR. GREENE’S KANAKA!
The government sheet is very much exercised over the fact that a street rumor is in circulation to the effect that R.J. Greene, a candidate on the government ticket for noble, had declared he “was the first man to kill a kanaka on the 30 th of July.” The government newspaper denies the charge that Mr. Greene killed the first kanaka, but adds with great simplicity, “that though physically disabled, he [Mr. Greene] was found in the very forefront that day doing his duty as a good citizen.” We suppose even the Advertiser will not objest to our defining the words “his duty,” in the above sentence, as “trying to shoot a kanaka;” and we therefore fail to see how it makes any difference to Mr. Greene’s position whether it was the first kanaka or the last kanaka or an intermediate kanaka who stopped or did not stop Mr. Greene’s bullet!
But while the Advertiser denies that Mr. Greene said he killed the first kanaka, there is an open admission that Mr. Greene intended to kill one, if he got the chance. Feeling doubtless that such argument was weak, the Advertiser in its usual manner personally attacks Mr. T.R. Lucas on the strength of said rumor about Mr. Greene. Mr. Lucas is personally attacked for repairing the palace gates—which by the way was done by Messrs. R. More & Co.—in his capacity of mechanic. But suppose Mr. Lucas to have done the job, is it any more than any other mechanic in Honolulu would do to-day, if so ordered by the present government ?— unless, perhaps, mechanics should, after past experiences with the “existing administration,” refuse to do work without being paid to do the work. But these, if anything, points to the “barricading” business. One of the members of the reform league worked on those gates and one of the members of that famous (now infamous) committee of thirteen was working in in the palace at the same time the alleged “barricading” was going on!
There is no political stigma attaches to MR. T.R. Lucas, whi did not do the work, nor to Messrs, R. More & Co., who did not get paid for doing the it . The men who were hired and did their work according to contract simply did their duty; the men who refused to pay for said work simply followed their usual course and political inclination without trying to do their political duty or official justice to the mechanics employed. We play upon no “hald-healed wounds and smouldering passions” in concluding that Mr. Greene tried to shoot kanakas and that the attack made upon the mechanics, who repaired the palace gates without pay, has been a straighter political shot against Mr. Greene than probably were Mr. Greene’s shots against kanakas!
MR. KAULUKOU’S POSITION.
A few days ago Mr. John Lota kaulukou, the government candidate for representative in the Sixth District, island of Oahu, was very much excited over a communication published in the NATIONAL HERALD about his being a probable government candidate. Mr. Kaulukou emphatically denied that such was the case. On his statement we published editorially a short denial of this rumor and promised to insert his written denial, published below, as soon as we had space to spare. Since our first denial for Mr. Kaulukou this gentleman has become a candidate on the government ticket and his name as such candidate is officially published in the Advertiser. We therefore take great pleasure in withdrawing our editorial denial made for Mr. Kaulukou and publishing in its place the written denial and now self-stultifying document of that gentleman himself:
MR. KAULUKOU’S DENIAL.
To the Editor of the National Herald
DEAR SIR :- -Among other opinions expressed in the letter signed by “True Hawaiian” in your paper of the 14 th of January, 1890, I noticed these words: “And it is reported that they are always after the Hon. J.L. Kaulukou to be a candidate on their side.”
In considering the intention and meaning of the above words, it seems the parties mentioned as coming after me, are probably the present ministers of the King, or otherwise, those that are probably backing them and approving of the conduct of the affairs of the government at the present time.
In replying to these words, I now stand forth and publicly declare the truth, so all may see from Hawaii to Niihau. Not one minister, nor all of them or even any one outside of them or any backers of the ministry or of those supporting the conduct of the government affairs at the present time, have been to me and asked me to run as a candidate on the government side.
Some time ago I was asked by some of the qualified electors of the District of Koolaupoko, and I have consented to that, and my mind is fixed to run as a candidate for that District, and I have waited for the result of that opionion, and by this do declare that I intend to run as an independent candidate, and stand as a guard for the people with the love of country for the