The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-10-01
CECIL Brown

RepuDlcan nOHllHdt4Oii as SCA4e~eSA 80
: the island of Oahu. to fill three vacan-
cies
Mr.. Cecil Brown was one of these
candidates He was not nominated,
and Immediately after the convention
adjourned, announced his intention OF
running anyway.
He stated that the sole and specific
ground for this course was that the
administration had intimidated dele
gates, more particularly office-holding
ones, into voting against him. who
otherwise would have voted for him,
and therefore the administration
should be rebuked.
Mr. Brown gave no specifications as
10 intimidation and coercion, and the
Advertiser therefore called for names,
dates and specific acts. Mr.. ]. L. Ka-
ulukou Immediately responded that
Attorney General Andrews had told
him that Mr.. Brown was opposed TO
the administration, but that notwith-
standing this information, he, Kaulu-
kou, worked and voted for Brown.
Several days have elapsed and moth
ing further has been heard from Mr..
Browns side Of the question, from
which we conclude that nothing more
win be said, as now is the time when
voters are making up their minds, and
if he had any facts supporting his
position, he would naturally present
them.
Mr.. Kaulukous statement tends to
prove if it tends to prove anything,
that he is a high-minded and indie
pendent citizen, who cannot be led to
violate his conscience, but it does not
prove or tend to prove that anybody
Brown.
Mr.. Browns charge stands, therefore,
improved.
Under these circumstances the Ad-
Vertiser does not see any ground for
supporting Mr.. Brown.
He went before the convention with
Messrs Dowsett. Bishop and Lane,
knowing that only three of them could
be nominated
He made no objection then, and he
makes none now, that either Bishop,
Dowsett or Lane are unfit or jrcap-
able of properly filing the office. He
had the right to expect that if he were
whoever of the other three
candidates failed of nomination would
gracefully withdraw and support the
ticket nominated The other candi-
dates had the right to expect, and did |
expect the same treatment at his |
hands. What have they done that he |
Mr. Brown knew as we'll before the |
as he did afterward that |
be was not a supporter of the admin |
istration and that the administration |
was not supporting him; but he took
his chances-ands lost.
In other words, Mr.. Brown was will !
ing to accept all the advantages of the
party organization and support if nom
mated, DuI Is unWlIIlng TO accept the
co-relative obligation of abiding by its
decision when it decides against him.
This is bad policy, and bad politics. |
If Mr.. Brown had stopped to think the |
matter out, we believe that he would |
have also realized that it involves bad |
faith on his part, which is not part |
Of his nature
Mr.. Brown cannot afford to endanger
the whole Republican senatorial ticket, !
which he will certainly do if he con-
tinues his independent candidacy, for
some men who vote for him will
scratch one of the Republican candi-
dates and some another, thereby so
lowering the average of each that they
may all be defeated, and that with
out necessarily e1ecting Mr.. Brown.
We believe that in the interests OF
good government Mr.. Brown should
waive any personal feeling he may
have in the matter, and withdraw
his candidacy.