Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 260, 17 ʻAukake 1891 — MORE ABOUT TREATY REVISION. [ARTICLE]

MORE ABOUT TREATY REVISION.

In nn article pub!isheJ last week, Ka showed that their exiet no reasons why this coūntry shauid eign for an extension (beyond the. ternis of the preselit Reciprocity Treatv) of the free list between Hawaii America. We showed that al 1 Hawaiian prodiicts, except wool, no*v eater the United States duty free, «ither by vi rtue of the treaty, or of general laws passed by CongrcBS. Henee, we have nothing to gain by the privilege of sending thither impossible goods; a3 to tlie one exeeption of wool, we produee very little of that article, and practically none excēpt the elip of the Gay-Sinclair ranch on Niihau, the Gibson ranch on Lanai, and a mo<Jerate establish ment on the slope of Maunakea. So that weraay say, there are only three families in the Kingdom interested in the wool tariff of the United States, a nutnber too insignificant to justify the of tariffcbangesin their interest. It is plain then, that we are now receiving pratically all the benefits possible to 6ur situation and conditions, in the direction *of a free American niarket for our products.

'As before pointed out, the result to our national revenue, —a decrease of from $80,000 to $90,000 per year, —-are so serious as to utterly forbid anv extension of the present free list, unless in view of the most palpable compensating advantages to ■icis. It is plain that no such eompensatory advantages are possible to ■us as a nation, and to pay tbe amount quoted for the benefit of a trio of wool growers would be as bad, in principle. and worse, in policy, than some of the advantages over the rest of the people, now enjoyed by the sugar barons.

It is nonsense to talk of "drawing closēr our relations with our neighbbr," unless there be ■florne benefit for us in the increased intimacv. It is not always wise to "draw closer our relations" — with a piek-iXM;ket. And. with great deference to our venerable and venerated Unele Samuel, we submit that he now stands to Hawaii in verv inueh the relation of a pick-pocket. That is. Unele Sam is sending iiearly all his goods into our iiort duty and is enjoving exclusive rights of occupancy in Pearl Harbvir <if immense value to us, if we now hajd them to dispose of, and what are we getting in return ? Virtually notliing. The benefits we foraierly enjoyed under the treaty lc-.ve been knocked into a eoekeel hat by that Bill McKinley, —-;{h !we beg pardon, we me?nt thut McKinley bill,—and we are now left to get along as best we :yay, ar»<lto carrv as best we ean. till Uio end of the treaty term, the ineubas of an obligation to $tand to its eonditions at whatever loss to our < xehequer. nnd injury to our sovereio:n rishls in Tearl Ilajbor.

Jt was couiplained of this treatv,

by its Americ»n opponents in yesrß past. tbat it was & ju£-handled " aifaii\ meaning therēby that the benefits were not only o«e*sided, but that thev were entirely on our side." Perhaps that was true. At any rate certain it is that the chief commere»al benefits of the compact were reaped by. our sugar magnates, whom the trcaty has niade richand insolent. Thev were, i n ariti-treaty days, unscrupulously . _ rapacious, and in that pnrticular the treat} T has efitcted no change in them. . But the li jug-handled" feature of the treaty ia transferred to the o!her skle. The jug has made a haif .e--volution upon its axis, and the hand!e is now within tlie grasp of Unele Sam. H« is getting all the sap, and we are getting ail the " soup." His hand is in our pocket, taking our scanty cash, while the present treaty lasts.

In the meantime v it >k>oks as though the obligation to stand by -that treaty till 1895 is all that we ean "bear of that kind of blessing. The only benefit that eau possibly eome to us from a revised treaty, will be in tlie direction cf pJacihg United States just where they, (by tho Mclvinley bill) have placed us, viz: on a plaiie of equality witlf the rest of the world. lt is'rubbish for Uneie Sam or his apologists to prate of the advantage to us froru the presejifer or anv future '■ reciprocity" treaty whieh leaves us at the mercy of the rest of the sugar world,- —shackled agaiust escape mbre favorab!e iuarkets or conditione, 'while American goods, flowing free of duty into our j>orts, cripple our revenue and uecessitate increase taxation. And a foreign partnership, if not ownership in Pearl Harbor, chafes against our sense of national independence, knd robs us of opp>ortunities to utiJize that Harbor in ways more consistent with our sovereign rights as a free state, and the best interests of our c@mmerce.

On the whole, the only true solution of the treaty question. the only solution compatible with the rights and interests of our eommewe on the one hand. and ournatiorial dignity as a member of tbe family of nations on the other hand, is for the Hawaiian Government to take all practicable steps to secure the abrogation of the so-called, but misnamed Reciprocity Treaty with the United States, at the earliest possible date.