Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1910-08-22
AUGUST 20. 1910

J. G. Cohen, had ever drawn a draft
on him or his principals.
Andrews denied that he had done
such n thing.
Chairman Atkinson also asked Mr..
Cohen whether he had paid Mr.. An
drews any money, authorized Andrews
to draw on him or on his principals,
and Cohen was just as prompt and
positive with his denial ms Andrews.
| Atkinson's questions were to the
point and certainly thoroughly under
stood by others present, If not by An
drews and Cohen. The denlals emit
cred by Andrews and Cohen were
sweeping and absolute.
Less than twenty-four hours after
those denlals were made by MIR. An
drews and Mr.. Cohen, Andrews and
Cohen admitted that Andrews had
drawn on Cohen for five hundred dol
lars and Cohen admitted that he had
secured the money to protect that
draft from his principals engaged in
some line Of liquor business in San
Francisco and California. sl
Evidently Andrews and Cohen had
forgotten their bald denials OF the
night before. il is remarkable that
two such keen men should have such
short memories, but of course they
were very much excited and could not
yerhaps remember everything. It
GEMS extraordinary that they should
OF have volunteered information re-
garding $500 draft that might be
Misunderstood. 1T
At all events, Chairman Atkinson
refreshed their memories by remind
ing them Of what they had said the
night before. lie asked them II they
had not denied fatty and broadly the
payment and receipt of money in an
swer to what was direct and COM
prehensIvc questioning.
Andrews and Cohen responded with
childlike innocence that they thought
Atkinson had reference to money for
political purposes
That Is q mighty small hole to crawl
out OF. Atkinson's questions OF the
night before were not of nature to
suggest that.he was. making any fine
distinctions as to the purposes for
which the money was to be used and
certainly the Andrews-Cohe combin-
alton volunteered no such distinction.
II Is certain that they were not
deeply impressed with the Importance
Of that money received for personal
services" as between attorney and eli
snt, until the evidence had been piled
up on every hand that Andrews had
drawn draft for five hundred dol
lars, and that Cohen had secured
funds to protect that draft from his
principals, and furthermore that the
Ave hundred dollars had been secured
by Cohen from certain interests that
were contributing to the campaign
fund raised to fight Prohibition.
For any man to sweepingly declare,
In the face OF such evidence and such
admissions that the accusations pre-
sented before the committee are
trumped up charges, made without
tenable grounds and known to be
false by the ones making them" is to
Impose on the credulity of the aver
/ age man with an average ability for
sizing up and fairly passing on the
words and acts of their fellow cit
liens.
The run to cover of the Andrews
men Is the usual method of an outfit
that Is up tree. With corroboratiye
evidence from many different sources
and sworn afildavits against which is
placed mere bald statements that have
afterwards TO be explained. the cry Is
raised that this is a struggle of the
liquor interests to get control Of the
Republican party, -
That is not the point at issue.
The question that the Republican
voters want answered is whether this
man Andrews paid by the party to or
sanize, has been giving the party
square deal.
The liquor interests cannot control
the Republican party II they should
want to. 1t may also be accepted as
foregone conclusion that the Repub-
lican party will not be worth control
ling by anyone II 1t is to stand spons-
or for such apparently scandalous
treachery as has been explained by
Andrews and Cohen as merely a priv
ate transaction between client and at