Ahailono o ka Lahui, Volume I, Number 20, 1 February 1890 — WHERE THEY STAND. [ARTICLE]

WHERE THEY STAND.

Wiien the Times takes tlie Hehaxd to task on the treaty qnestion it ren« ders itself most ridicnloos. The Herald kas challenged the Times to define its treaty demands. But the shifty organ harps on free trade, reciprocity, closer relations with the United States, etc., without explicitly explaining th£. terms of the treaty whīeh it advocates. Bnt every indication points to its endorsement of the Carter bargain: viz., the absorption of onr antonomy by the United States in compensation for a few commercial concessions. Free trade at the eipense of freedom!

The Times argues that we have only to demand tbis new treaty of the United Btates to get it. It is frank in its admission that this scheme emanates from these islands. It has in tnrn been repudiated by the people and the government, so it mnst have originated with an intereBted few. That the government now endorses it sim« ply shows a return to its clique alleglance. Now, supposing the author* ship of this statesmanlike proposition to be conceded to a lew interēsted planters, j whai additional benefits would accrue to the contracting par* ties, and the United Btates? To Hawaii it would secure either parv tial or ecitire free trade, Would not a permanent ex.tension of the commer» eial protection we now enjoy under the reciprocity treaty sēcure the same?

Now the United States is asked to give what it has already conceded when_Hawaii was placed under tariff protection through the reciprocitj treaty. But partial free trade, as the Times calls our present commercial protection, is not ©nough. The present government party demands absolute free trade and in addition a guaranty of soio protection. This protection, in the crafty intent of its promQters, is of two kinds:jsiz., (1) against for* eign interference with our autonoray; and (2) an iniquitous alliance with the government against its own citizens! Now the according of tbis protection the assumption of 'ihm responBibility would nolr resxūw in one iota of additional adyantage to the United States. Protection is not" a title of ownership. The islands, geographically related as they are to the United States, could never in qon* sonance with their own prosperity, make a treaty repugnant to that eoum try. Policy and self-interest n&tur* ally ally us to that country. A sole protectorate could not cement closer

rolatloDs. Only annesation could make os oloser—ami tkiU i$ w/mU the Times wanl$ t hui /ears just at ]>wsei:t to ilemand!