Hawaii Holomua, Volume I, Number 33, 25 October 1893 — The Investor and His Rights. [ARTICLE]

The Investor and His Rights.

The “8t*r” with its osaal impadeat auJacitv. bas been trying to make poliiieal bagbear oat of ceriain stalisticai fipuros—on tbe nationalitvof capital investedbere in corporatioo enterprises—eompiled for j>artisan parp.>>es bv the miseiooaiy descendant Thomas G. Thrum. “Stiirr\’ Smith cal’s bis crazy lacabrations on the matter. “the and his rigbtfl.' and he starts by asserting that the said statistics of corporations, show “the extent to whieh native and half-cast Hnwaiiaus are pnrtnor» in the OWNERSHIP of their Country.” The moral of Smith’8 p«>stalate i« evidently that the investor of eapilal h»8 an inherent right to Own the country in whieh he deigns to mvest. in other w«»nl6, that au investor of money in a eoneem or specnlation therebv. owus, not oulv that concern. bnt also tbe l'niverso in whieh the eonoem happena to be located. Thas, supiK>sing Smith to have invested money—whieh God forbid!—iu the St»r Newspa}>er Co., this wouhl entitle him to own the houso in whieh the eooeem is establishe«l, and therewith all of Honululu' Tbis is indeed a new international oinie of law inaugurated by Smith, whereby, in virtue of all the miiiions of capital investod by £nglishmen in America, that country uught to be oume<l bv its English investors. What wouhi Unele Sam say to that? But. as «ueh is not yet tbe case. it is not probable th«t. ou acconnt of a certain> amonnt of foreign eapilal beiug invosted here, Smith’s theoiy will give the said invesU)rs any sj«ecial. preferential riyht to oun this countn-, eveu in spite of the fact (?) that “business is now ruling in noarly all couutries where the mass of tne population cannot govern itself, ’ whieh is auother failacious theory of Sinith’s nnbalauccd cranium. The onlv plaosible oxcuse for Smith's tbeory to l»eco«ue a law, might be if the sai«l Investors of corporations—whom heso boldly calls to the *‘ownership of th«s coaotry”—did al«o, through the sarae said eapiial investe«i here, poascflfl in fee «imple the roajoriiv of oar latuis. But Smith wuuhl bo ven mneh embarrassed to tell in what proportion our lands are really otrned —not simply oeeupieal or cultivated —by the iorestors «>f wh*t he claims —on Thrum's «lobatable assertion—21.700,6d9 dollars of Atueriean eapiial represontiug sngai corporatious and otber mercantilo eoneema? Tbis is a point very prudently ignored by friend Tbrum. bat whieh we chailenge him and the Star to daro publiah. Tbos, wb«tever r«gbts “Investors' roay h«ve—«ud we «re tbe first to recogoise them «nd wmh to see tbem doly protected - we f*il to soe how the figures published by ihe “St«r eao m any way “show'' tbat the ownership of cor)K>r«tioo capit«l enti|les the c«pitalists »nd iavestors to the owoership of the wb«vie countrv, all the more so as sugar and mer caotile corporatioos do oot represent tbe «hole c«pital of Ihe Kingv)om. nor tbe sole rigbts o( tbe Nat:oo. \Vhat aboat the rights ol Keal-Estates owners nol «ogaged ia sogar eoipomiionn. aod what aboot Ihe ngbts of Tax P*ver» at largv? This U • point

to be coosidered io a ful!owing issae. when. «e shall discoss Thrum’s figor«« in tbemseives. Ar REVom!