Ahailono o ka Lahui, Volume I, Number 11, 22 January 1890 — Page 2
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.
F. WUNDENBERG.
Lunahoomalu o ka Mahele Ekahi, Apana Ekolu.
The National Herald.
Honolulu, Jan. 22, 1890.
“INTELLIGENT knaves” are known to the family compact as brother knaves when said “intelligent kanves” are fortunate enough to have money to lend on natives’ kuleanas !
THE Advertiser claims that a dishonest minister might at any time deplete and bankrupt the Hawaiian Treasury! It is just this kind of rotten system of government, which makes such malfeasance possible, that the National Reform party proposes to remodel!
“NOW, friends, as I look upo you here I think that you represent only a small portion of the people who are in favor of reform,” said Mr. Kaaukai at the government party meeting the other night. Every elector in the National Reform party heartily agrees with Mr. Kaaukai’s honest and truthful sentiment!
HON. W.O. SMITH, after considerable patient rehearsal, performed his talented act at the Armory last Monday evening of unrolling the two platforms. He explained that the long platform was a bad one and the short one was a platform of deeds!! Well then we object to the deeds of the government party! We have absolute proof that the record of the government party and its last platform bear no relation to each other!
WELL, Mr. Lucas told the truth even if his language was not as finely put together as his mechanical work always is! Suppose we put Mr. Lucas’s blunt sentence whih goes home to the people as political truth, into the polished panguage which would probably be used by Sam Wilder’s brother: viz., “I tell you, gentlemen, all the fellows on our ticket are honest, mean well all the other fellows don’t.” In the latter case the grammatical construction of truth would necessarily be gone!
--------------------
THIS morning’s Advertiser again deplores exciting natives against foreigners. Notice the covert threat contained in the article. Nothing is said about exciting foreigners against natives. What more earnest advocate of such sectional lines than the Advertiser! After the October trials it worked itself into a perfect fury and now while catching its breath calls all men who think the natives have some special grivances, “demogogues” etc. –Here is the covert threst: that our enterprises are but partially developed and if the natives become naughty the money invested may be withdrawn. Now according to the Advertise everything will be lovely if we all work together like a band of brothers under the reform party. But this is just what patriotic natives and honest foreigners refuse to do!
THE DIFFERENCE.
We wish to call the attention of the public generally and of native hawaiians especially to one or two pominent points of defference between the respective platforms of the governemt and National Reform parties; also to the different positions taken and now occupied by the respective candidates of these parties. First, it will be noticed that the declaration of principles upon which the National Reform candidates are pledged leaves no demand or want of the people to guesswork. The platform is full at all points and is particularly explicit wherever the people have demanded special legislation, as on the Chinese question. On that other most important point—so dear to native Hawaiians—the independence of the country, there is no chance to escape the intent and patriotic purpose plainly set forth in the second clause, to maintain without reservation or commercial quibble the perfect autonomy and absolute independence of the Hawaiian kingdom against all foreign encroachment, either proffered or invited.
Upon this latter point, as upon all others mentioned in the five short clauses of the government platform, the party of promises is vague and uncertain an leaves a loophole in the phrase, “amplest commercial benefits in our treaty relations with the United States,” which, at any time the “existing administration” may see fit, can be successfully constured into a foreign protectorate, as already once attempted by the leaders of the government party! But each of the remaining clauses or planks of the platform of the party of political promises is of the same character; viz., a general statement or promise which may be construed and carried out in two or more ways, as the compromise party which drafted it intended it should be. A ticket made up to fuse the three conflicting elements of religion, sugar and whiskey—which have always been against the people’s interests singly— can hardly be expected jointly to initiate and carry out legislation in the people’s interests! The fact is this ugly political compromise is a thin pretext to retain the control of the Hawaiian government in the interests of the wealth-acquiring and family-compact classes. The whiskey element has been taken in under protest, because the government ticket had no earthly or heavenly chance of winning the election in Oahu without it.
So much in a general way as to the platforms. Let us now turn for a moment to the positions occupied by the candidates. There is not and has not been any uncertain sound given out by the candidates of the National Reform party. At the grand ratification meeting held in the Rifles’ Armory lately, and upon many other occasions since, the candidates of the people’s ticket have openly and heartily pledged themselves on an emphatic and detailed platform, to carry out and protect without reserve the political wants and legislative demands of the people. These candidates have pledged their political honor, and certainly their chances of future political referment at the hands of the people, that the platform shall be carried out immediately, so far as in their power lies, to all intents and purposes as though the people voted directly for the principles laid down, and the measures contained therein!
How stand the candidates upon the government ticket? As usual ,- -pledged to every body except the people they wish to represent. Have they explained their position or asserted where they stand in relation to the wants and demands of the electors of the kingdom? Yes, some of them have spoken in vague and general terms of doing the best for the public good, but as to what shall be done and what is the public good they will decide afterwards as their party leader may direct! Their platform is either silent on these points or leaves them an open question! But some of the government candidates have not even expressed themselves on the alleged principles of their platform! While others have declared themselves willing to go to political “glory” on their alleged platfrom, but have rather foolishly started on that road by attacking the personal reputations of the candidates of the National Reform ticket. These candidates have openly pledged their political faith and honor to the people’s interests and have the advantage over the political “muddthrowers” on the compromise ticket of whiskey, sugar and prayers, in having a straightforward, substantial and detailed platform upon which to unite their pledges with the interests of the people!
THE DAY.
-------------
That dainty moral exponent, the Advertiser, whih is owned and run by certain “money lenders” of the family compact, is in great glee this morning over a decision given in the case of John Bowler vs. The Hawaiian Government. It seems that Mr. Bowler undertook and carried out a contract in good faith under the old regime, for which the present government refuse to pay him. We do not know or care whether the conduct of the old government and Col. V.V. Ashford, for services never rendered, upon which the present regime saw fit to pay one-half, or $2,500. It seems to us that a supreme court whih declares Mr. Bowler shall not be paid for work done in good faith would also be constrained, if called upon, to condemn this payment by the same government of almost twice the amount of Mr. Bowler’s claim to another foreigner for services which were not rendered. Mr. Bowler loses his money, because the old government did wrong; and said foreigner got his money, because the present government did wrong. We condemn the government’s action in both cases; sympathize with Mr. Bowler and congratulate Col. Ashford on getting his political retainer!
Whenever the government newspaper finds itself absolutely constrained to answer some point raised against its party it foes so by immediately discussing the politics of some other country. This moral prattler of the “money lenders” gets as far away from Hawaiian politics as the brother of Sam Wilder did in his speech the other night, before a shot is returned. By the way, speaking of speeches reminds us that another political blunder has been made on the government side in publishing those “mudthrowing” speehes of government candidates—all except brother Cunha’s, which was as harmless and modest as one of his own cocktails in an official stomach! It is quite evident that brother Cunha has fallen into vulgar political company, but being such a nice fellow himself we advise him hereafter to keep the party bottle in his own possession until after the speeches are made!
ANOTHER GOVERNMENT DODGE .
To the Editor of the National Herald:
SIR :- -It seems that in view of diminishing as much as possible the number of voters, the inspectors of elections—or those who inspire them have decided to construe our new and lame electoral law to an extent not forseen by its own father. The dodge is this: under the law requiring residene of three month’s to entitle an elector to vote for nobles, all persons who have changed their residence within the last three months are not allowed to register—and consequently vote in their new district, whilst they are equally refused the right of registration and vote in their former district. Now, the questions is, how does this standing between two chairs, imposed by the inspectors, agree with the understanding in the reform constitution, by whivh no man can be deprived of his right of voting, except for criminal offenses? As the cases of this nature are quite numerous a test case will be brought before the Court, and all voters who happen to be in that condition are currently requested to make the partiulars of their case public at once.
KEEN OBSERVER.
Honolulu Jan.22, 1890.
NA MANAO PEPA.
KA AHAILONO A KA LAHUI.
HONOLULU, IANUARI 22, 1890.
E ELEU na Hawaii a pau a e hoopaa i na inoa, i loaa ai hoi ke kulena e koho balota ai.
E NUI ana paha ka poino o ka poai aupuni mamuli o kela whai hana o ka hoopaa inoa ana, a e oi loa aku ana hoi mamua ae o ka lakou mea i manmao ai e paa ka Aoao Lahui i ka huelo. Ua paalua na Hawaii e hoopaa inoa nei mamua ae o na lahui e ae; a e koho ana na oiwi Hawaii a pau loa i ka paa balota Lahui! I nui ke aho a kau i ka puaaneane!
---------------------
MAI hopohopo na poe kuleana koho balota o ka Apana Elima no ko oukou Moho Lahui, oiai i nehinei i waiho ia aku ai ka palapala noi o 59 poe koho