The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1909-03-24

vestigating committee The making
public Of the list created a sensation.
Among those who figured prominently
In the list and the amounts received
are; Levi II. Bancroft speaker Of the
assembly, $3.50. j. w stone, state
game warden. $500: l.. u. Dresser,
member of the state board of control,
S21O0; w G. Wheeler. United States
District Attorney $500: John r. Kelly
city attorney of Milwaukee. $500. Rock
Flint, United States marshal $50; G.
Gordon. La Crosse, 81 500; Scion Per-
rine, Superior. $4,000; d. r. Riordan,
eX-State senator, $1,000; c. c. We
lensgard ,assemblymhan, S250.So
Hugh Lewis. doorkeeper United States
Senate, $500, T. Purtell, State fire
marshal s115.
Others received smaller sums. Items
described as touches show the old
soldiers and "heelers" received 81
each Speaker Bancroft has been no.
titled to be in readiness to testify up
on the call of the committee.
Let us rub our eyes and remind
ourselves that this political debauch is
not under the old system, but under
the new; it was not perpetrated By
some boss-ridden convention from
which such things were to be expected,
but from the divinely inspired plan
that would forver place the lamb-like
electorate beyond the reach of the
wolf-like boss. No wonder the New
York Sun would throw up its hands in
disgust and in the name of democratic
ideals pray that the State may be saw
ed from the debauch of the Direct Pri-
mary. The Sun says:
A lot of people in this state, good,
bad, and indifferent, want to reform
the primary election law-or think
they want to reform it.
The main purpose to be accomplish
ed, as all alike assure us, is to enable
the voters to participate directly in
the nomination of candidates for Of
fice.
The real object of each party to the
controversy is to bring about the
enactment of law which will facili-
| tate the nomination of its own par
ticular ticket and place every possible
legal obstacle in the way of the sue
cess of the ticket of its rivals.
For example, the Republican organi-
cation wants primary law which will
insure the nomination of an organiza-
ton ticket, the Citizens Union wants
primary law which will insure the
nomination of the candidates favored
by the Citizens Union, and doubtless
voters who are interested in the cause
of organized labor want primary law
which will promote the nomination of
labor leaders on the tickets Of both
the great political parties
From an ethical point of view or
ganized labor is just as much entitled
to special privileges under a primary
law as is the Republican organization
or the Citizens Union.
Any project for direct nominations
which makes the candidates proposed
by one body of men regular necessar-
lily implies irregularity on the part of
all other proposed candidates and
places them at a disadvantage
We confess to high degree of SYM
pathy with the disappointed reformer
who when he found that this was the
outcome of all the recent hue and cry
about direct nominations pronounced
it a piece of damned impudence'
The disappointed 4efornIer' GER
tainly had a gift of speech ordinarily
denied to his kind. Perhaps his lapse
into TIE vulgar tongue was due to his
disaI pointment, buA however that
may be. we thank him for largo
maui.