Hawaii Holomua, Volume I, Number 78, 19 December 1893 — Mrs. Mary Clement Leavitt. [ARTICLE]

Mrs. Mary Clement Leavitt.

Mrs. Mary Clement Leavitt who is or or was the Presiilent of the World‘s W. C. T. U., and an active propagater of temj>erance principles and fonnder of branch societies in connection with it bas been in onr midst some time. She bas apparently abandoned the platfonn of her society for that calls b>r neither j>olitics nor sectarianism, and in fact denonuces any atterapt at bringing either in to enterfere with the harmony whieh the eommou de- , votion to water, nnadnlterated with aleohol, is supposed to inspire 4hat eminently worthy association. As Mrs. Leavitt has ruade herself a pnblic character, she has thrown aside that shield from publie discnssion in print. whieh her sex wonhl otherwise entitle her to, and in the instance we are about to refer to, she has invited public criticism by uninvited rnshing into the politics of a nation she is a stranger and au alien to, aud coiuing out in print to cast odium and oblotjuy on another nation w’uieh elaima her not as a citizen. It is with mueli grief that we note these actions of Mrs. Leavitt. Gnef uot for herself—she has shown herself unworthy of tbat—but for the cause whieh she reprrsents. How ean she expect ladies to join or remain in eonneeiion with her association, and further its etlects as long as such au nn-called-for, and falsifying slanderer as herself remains in olheial connection with it. Thus it is that the prejudiced bigot ever destroys the work of good to whieh their hand has turned in order to bolster np some petty il!ogioal and personal opinion whieh revolts those who, otherwise woukl have assisted in aiding the aspiration after improvement and amelioration of the human race. It grieves us exceedingly to say these things of a wamau, but Mrs. Leavitt has practically abandoned womanhood, and eome out a politician. The rules of warfare only exempt non combatants. When a woman goes into the fight. she has to take the same risks as a man having practically unsexed herself for the time being.

i It is tberefore with profound apologies to ber sex, and witb profound contempt for herself that we feel obliped to state that Mrs. Mary Clement Leavitt of the W. C. T. U. is an ignorant, aud bigoted liar, who perverts facts, mistakes histon', neglects Christianity, and revives the aneieni intolerance of the Independents of Cromwell's Army, and the witeh-burners of Salem. That this may not be reckoned as mere assertion, we snbjoin a few facts verifiable by appeal to standard histories and the exI 1 perieuce of living men. Mrs. Maiy Clement Leavitt of the W. C. T. U. in her celebrated , letter to the Star denouncing the 6ritish, first gives a description j t of the history of Tasraania and > , its colonizi»tion by the English ( , whieh is false in every particular ] bat the fact that it was a penal , settlement np to abont 1850. She says that the hiatory of the isl- . and forms a chapter of horror j nnsarpassed in modern times ] “leading one from her context to < imagine tbat ihe treatment of tbe aborigines by the £nglish was i this “chapter of horror.” Now i the real fact is all the horror of t

• * the history of the Tamanian lslands—Van Diemen’s Land as > it was known in those days— la}' j in the treatroent of the convicts who were English. and no$ in the , treatment of the natives. The stories of eonvicts bnying ritles to massacre the natives is false. ' Escaped and runaway convicts I who could get rifles used to* get them if poss i b 1 e to r 'pro t e e t theraselves from ' recapture, but not to useagainst , the n.itives with whom they used . to associate frie«dlily if possible. We should like to ask j Mrs Maiy Clement Leavitt to consult Mr. John T. Waterhouse, Sr., on this branch of her historical and statistical edncation. She might have a | different idea when she got tbrough of the early Listory of Van Diemen’s Land. i We might say in this eonnee- ; tion that there is no record anvwhere either documentary or in i the memories of living men of i “English (or auv other nationality) of missionaries” arriving in Vau Diemeu’s land. English i clergvmen were there from the first settlement for the then military regn!ations of the English army provided a chaj)lain for eaeh reginent. The fiual history' of the Tasmanian aborigines and their ultimate extinction is skited in an equally misleading and untruthful way. But to compare the Tasmauian aborigines absolutely ineapahle of civilization with the educated intelligent aud civilized Hawaiians of today is an insult that onlv a woman (/) eoukl have thought of. When the foreigner eame to this islands land tenuuro societv, government law, and comraerce were fully organized. In Vau Diemen's land might was right amongst its inhabitants. no settled governmeut, no anything making for permanency had heen thought of. A more crnel, sanguinarv debased and ignorant set of people ean hardly be imagined from the time of their first discnvery by Tasraan early in the 17th century till their extinction. As for the Burman incideut that was the r> sult of war provoked by the Burmese King Theebaw himself. The allusion to the King of Oud>* relating to his treatrrent after after his infarnous cruelties in the sepoy rebellion in 1856-7 enmea with ill-grace from a woman whnse s:sters’ suHerings and indignities at that time ought to have raoved her to execration of a monster in human fonn rather ihan to eample him as a case of British cruelty. To instance William of Normandy or William of Orange, both of whom c!aimed a throne. and were invited by their subjects to occupy, sbows even greater i historical ignorance than any of 1 the foregoing aample?. So a!?o the i war in Matahele land. In all in-

' 9t*nces the British fooght only when provoked to war by outrage. 1 he result of the warlike conquest is history. In no case were they aliena in a strange land hy sufferanee of us constitutional and legal rulers and inhabitants. In nq case did they rebel against a ruie they had submitted to. As for the : assertion tbat inhabitants of India native to its soil have no I share in iis govornment, it only | proves Mrs. Mary Clement Leavit, either a liar or an inexact observer, we shall Ieave Mrs. Leavitt to the tender mercies of the powers that be—after restoration. She will possibly appreciate tbem as a mem-

bfer of the W. C. T. U. better than£those of the ilninkeo rulhan» who now umler the P. G. run the country.

The Star e»iitor is ple*sed, because the Holomia Editor “juraped a gutter and dropped his revolver.’ The ditference frora the St«r eilitor is that he will * prop his revolver and theu jump—the couutry. The celebration of ‘'Foauder’3 Day’’ at the Kamehameha School was a great success. A large number of Hawaiians visited tho «cboo’s nnd made the occasion exactlv what the noble founder Mrs. Pauahi Bishop desired it to be. T!ie present manager deserves great credit f>'r tbe work whieh he has performed since the departure of bis unpopulai predecessor Mr. 01eson. W e shall refer at some future opporttunitv to this festivitv. The political excitement of the preseut momeut interfeies with all social and public entertainments.