Hawaii Holomua, Volume II, Number 11, 13 Ianuali 1894 — Mr. Stevens' Unruly Tongue. [ARTICLE]

Mr. Stevens' Unruly Tongue.

A guavdiau ahoukl be appoiuted for the month of ex-Ministor Stevens. Oue with orclinary discretion even woulil have saved him from some of the more obvions absurdities characterizinp his speech at West Somervillo. Mass., lately. “Not a *hand.’ he said, to show thatQueeu Liliuokalani’s government was devoid of support, “was lifted in defense of the semi ‘ barbanan throne when it fell.” What then were the United States marines landod for' Did the provisional government lie when it asked that they be sent ashore to protect life and property t aud otherwise mainiain order? If it did not lie some i hand, lifted “indefense of the ) “somi-barbarian throue,’ ronst have beeu visible or imagined, and ouly their presence in the government buildiug stayed the , feared. or threatened, blow. But [ was not that using UuitedStates troops to overthrow “the semi- [ barbarian throne?' J But this is not all. To the r 1 suggestion that the Hawaiiansbe j>ermitted to vote on the cjuestion 0 f annexation Mr. Stevens raises a a cloud of formidable objections, . the chief beiug tliat “it was first made by “the British mii:ister at k . Honoluln, a Tory “in his politj ieal views,'’ and afterwards snp • ported by tho lottery and opinm rings aud the Canadian Pacific ruilroad as an etfective “metbod ' of defeating annexation. That a Tory, who is supposed to be an j euemv of denmcntio institutions, i ahouhl snggest a nnivcrsal ballol j | of tbe people to settle an imjx>r- • tant queation is indeod remarkF able. but is it to be regarded aa au nuanswerabl« objeokion to . suoh a method of settlementi f j Certainly Americans, who resort , r ! to it constantly. ought nOt ir Is not the otber braoch of Mr ii i Steveas’ objection to tais melhoei - i of settlement evon more impo ,e | tentl Ifitis tma thatthe Ha o waiiaus eaunoi be trosted to vot< u ou the qoestiou of anuexaiion be cause they would be corrnpte<

bv tbe l<*ttei7.' *nd piam rings anJ tbe C«D3ili»D P<tcific K»ilro*vl, vbat a»sur.iuce have *« that they ean be trosted to tv>W aninflaeaced on otber qaestions thmt wouM eome ep after annexation? Simpiy the floaiing of “the ftag of ** the Unitevl States anmolested over the “Hawaiian Isflands” woald not work any • snch sadden and eomplele moral regeueration that they coa!d be depended apon to scorn bribes. For a long time to eome they would be as idolatroos and corrnptible a» the annexationists charge that they are now. Were they to fall under the ināuenee of soch anscropclous fellows as , Stevens, it is uot unjust to infer from our experienoe with carpet bag rule in the soath, thoy wooid be worse, even than tbey are. In view of a possibility of this kind, nay the certainty, if :*tevens’ impatation upon the Kaoaka character is just. is not unnexation to be condemned aud opposed ■ A few more deiivorances like these from Mr. Stevens will leave no doubt, in tae miuds of the aDnexationists even, as to how this question should be answered. - -Rochester Adver(iser.