The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-06-04
Of
THE BREWERY
The Anti Saloon People
Ask Some Sharp
Questions.
June >. 1902.

June ,. 1902.
To the Editor OF The Advertiser: The
included communication was prepared
for your paper and was suppressed
" hen the writer's heard OF the contempt
proceedings against Treasurer Wright.
We would respectfully request that
you give II space In toto in view of
subsequent history:
Honolulu. May %. 1902
We notice In the issue OF your paper
OF May u an article headed. The
Brewery's Defense" As this article
makes no reference 20 any particular
attack, we write for the sake OF hav-
ing the issue clearly defined. n are
the brewery's rights? Did the Present
brewery inherit the franchise OF the
original brewery ituated ut Kalihi. on
the premises OF Mr.. Waller. which fran
chise was issued under the law OF 1857
II 80. their franchise "A ceased. II
his IL not the case. we would ask. why
have the Treasurer and the Attorney
General been much worried as to their
right TO renew this franchise? Is not
the rumOr correct that an actual reis-
stancc has been given by the Treasur-
err II SO. when did the Legislature
confer such powers upon h
err n. which seems To be the plain
everyday Interpretation OF the law. the
Honolulu Brewing and Mailing Com
pany went into business. taking the
risk OF a short. ~unexpired term OF an
old franchise. they do not deserve the
sympathy % the business community
We submit to all thinking men. until
such time as the court has decided II.
that the Legislature at the time OF
granting the franchise had one COM
pany In view (which afterwards failed)
and the Honolulu Brewing and Mating
Company started into business on the
basis OF this particular franchise. We
further submit that all references TO
prominent business houses here. in the
article OF yesterday. were irrelevant.
II Is noted that Manager Hooking Is
quoted as admitting that according TO
the decision Of Judge Estee. the IL
censes ~ the Primo saloons may not
be relssued." We ask whether these sa-
looms hold any valid license at the pres
ent time? The injunction leaves them
no legal footing from the time OF its
and says nothing about the
reissuing OF licenses. one OF the grave
questions In controversy is this: why
Is not his injunction put into opera
ton. or ut least tested?' II Is herein
submitted. likewise. that IL Is irrele-
want To discuss the relative merits OF
beer and wine or spirits. The question
IL one OF law and order. and resolves
itself into these simple propositions:
First-Have the Primo beer saloons
any more rights than the sellers OF
"Swipes?"
Second-Has the Honolulu Brewing
and Mailing Company any more rights
than the makers OF "okolehao?"
Though much might be said on the
subject. the relative harm In these dif-
ferent beverages Is a matter not under
discussion at this time. II is the earn
est desire OF the undersigned gentlemen
that the public should not only see the
issue clearly. but that from the edito-
riaI chair and elsewhere there may
come further light on the real merits
OF this question
Thanking you for the space. we are.
yours very truly.
THEODORE RICHARDS.
]. LEADISGHAM.
4. V. SOARES.
Committee.
What has happened since Is some
what perplexing. Is what has been
styled contempt" no longer contempt?
Has the Treasurer satisfied the court on
his point7 Does delay or neglect on
the part OF the prosecution nullify the
OF an Injunction? These are plain
questions which have little to do with
the merits or dement's OF beverages
and should be answered.
Thanking you for your space and
coping for satisfactory nswer from
some source. we are. in the Interest OF
law and order.
THE ABOVE NAMED GENTLEMEN.
Denman Creamery butter recon-