The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-10-26
A Reply to
Mr.. Smith
Continued from page 1.

1 knew, Mr.. Smith, you would con-
denim it; I knew you did not believe
in 1t. Our point was that you should
| say so, and you should have said so
| three weeks sooner than you have.
You and I had the honor of voting
| shoulder to shoulder in the Legislature
| of 1888 for an election law which made
! it a criminal offense to '"provide
voter" with either '"meat, drink or en-
tertainment" for the purpose of "influ-
encing such person to vote or refrain
fom voting for ANY particular person
or party" And what you and [ and
a mass of other legislators unanimous
ly thought should be guarded against
in the Penal Code in 1888, I knew you
would not be condoning when it came
to the scratch in 1906. vale" beer,
whether at political meetings or wheth-
er confined in one key or a dozen.
Shake, Brother Smith.
Now, as to the two leading candi-
dates on the Democratic ticket who are
saloonkeepers. In the first place, I as
sumo that you will recognize the diff
ference between the sale of liquor in
a licensed saloon according to law
by the way, a Republican law-and the
furnishing of liquor outside of a saloon
at political meetings, where the pur-
pose is TO reach the conviction and Sc
cure the spontaneous support Of the
voter by the enunciation of sound doc
trine." In that penal provision that
you and l voted so heartily for in 1888,
against treating the voter with meat,
drink or any entertainment to influ-
ence his vote you surely recognized the
distinction between such treating and
the sale of liquor in a licensed saloon,
according to law. Moreover, these two
candidates, Mr.. Harvey and Mr.. Nc
Carthy, stand pledged to higher Ii
cense and to local option in regard to
the opening of saloons, a position as
advanced on the liquor question as
either party demands; and unless you
challenge the good faith of their pledge
in this respect your appeal against
them contained in your letter can only
mean that you would not take the help
and support of an intelligent and re-
sponsible saloonkeeper in securing the
very amendments to- the law that you
yourself desire, or else it is a mere APP
peal to a general feeling against the
business itself.
The Democratic party, in it's plat
form has recognized the licensed sale
of liquor under strict regulation and
has condemned in unequivocal terms
the unbridled sale of liquor that has
grown up under the present Republi-
can LIQUOR law. And these two saloon
keepers on our ticket stand Pledged to
make good that plank in the platform
by their votes if elected, and I do not
think there is reasonable-minded vot-
er in this country that knows Frank
Harvey and Charley Mccarthy but be-
lieves that those men will make good
in every particular that plank in the
platform which they have both &C
cepted
l think, Brother Smith. that you are
certainly off in declaring that 1 held
you up to contempt and scorn in
stating that you, Smith, could with
one determined effort shut out the use
of liquor in the campaign" On the
contrary, I consider that a great trib-
ute to your personal standing in the
Republican party and your power, sin
gle handed. to win over all OF your as
sociates to your views on this inpor-
tant question.
You then proceed to ask why the
Democrats did not shut out liquor from
a Democratic meeting at Waia0ae last
week Saturday, and you declare that
our leading candidates, including the
candidate for Sheriff, were present,
and that drunkenness and carcusing
was carried on through the night. !
am leaving this evening. bit 1 have
asked Mr. Mccarthy to present a full
statement OF what occurred there that