The Hawaiian gazette., 1907-06-25
WHERE WERE THE
DIRECTORS TO
THE SALOONS?

The gathering was made up almost
entirely of saloonkecpers and lawyers.
SO far rs there was any auricular
evidence, there was not single repre-
sentative in the audience of any
organized sentiment against the liquor
traffic. 1t was the first public hearing
under the new liquor license law for
and against the granting of specific
liquor licenses. Forty-two times Chair
man Ballentyne of the Commission ask
ed If anyone had objections to offer to
the granting of the applications for
license under consideration. Forty-two
times silence was the only response. 1t
was a very great surprise to the mem
bers of the commission, especially after
all that has been said of the evils
growing out of the old law and the
gratulatory expressions made by those
opposed to saloons, as to the power the
new law gave them to restrict the
traffic.
1t looks as though the whole crowd
that want the number of saloons cut
way down, and the traffic restricted,
were very willing to throw the whole
burden of doing it on us, said one of
the Commissioners.
The meeting of the Board of License
Commissioners Friday afternoon was
called for the special purpose of giving
public hearing as to whether or not
specific licenses should be granted.
There were forty-two applications up
for consideration. AS to each or any
one of them this meeting was required
by the law, to give opportunity for
any objection to granting of the Ii
cense. But not an objection was made.
The proceedings resolved themselves
down into little more than a calling
of the roll of the forty-two applicants
whose applications were on the calendar
for this meeting. All the members of
the Board of License Commissioners
were present. There were forty or fifty
other persons present, as has been
stated mostly saloonkeepers and law
.yers. The application of the Hoffschlae-
ger Company was the first on the list.
Chairman Ballentyne called it off and
asked if there were anyone represent
ang the Hoffschlaeger Company present.
A representative of the concern re-
sponded.
"Will you be good enough to state
why the Hoffschlaeger Company should
be granted a license?" asked Chairman
Ballentyne.
The representative of the firm was
clearly little disconnected. The whole
proceeding was new and unusual. Per
haps, too, the form of the question was
a surprise, for his reply was, "Well,
the Hoffschlaeger Company have always
had a license" as though to his mind
the only pertinent inquiry could be
Why shouldn't they have icensef"
They are well known in the trade, he
added.
The chairman then asked if there
were any objections to the Hoffschlaeger
Company being granted a wholesale Ii
cense. No objections were voiced, and
none have been filed.
The application of E. S. Cunha for
a license for the Union Saloon was the
next on the list. No one appeared
either for or against Perhaps it had
never occurred to Father Cunha either
that any reason other than the Uni IN
Saloon itself was needed to lie urged |
for it, or that anyone coutl possibly |
object.
w. c. Peacock & Company s applica |
tion for saloon license for the Pa |
cific Saloon at King and Nuu.nu streets
was No. 3. C. w. Ashford said that he
w. c. Peacock generally,