The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1910-08-21


and desired assistance not coupled with !
demand for prohibitions: but that he !
required money for independent work !
in securing his position as leader of
the Republican party. and the repudia- /
ton of both Mr.. Cooke and prohibition
meant the cutting off of funds; Mr..
Andrews then offered that if the Whole
sale Liquor Dealers Association of Ha
wall would pay him, personally, the sum
of $4,000, he would repudiate Mr.. J. 2.
Cooke and guarantee that no prohibition
plank would be adopted by the Repub
lican party, either in convention or
otherwise: that no one would be nomi-
mated by the next Republican city and |
county convention that was inimical to
the liquor interests in Hawaii, and to
secure his good faith, he, Andrews,
prior to the nominations at such con-
venton, would submit to affiant the
names of the proposed nominees for his
(afiant's) approval.
"CHAS G. BARTLETT,
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 18th day of June, A. D. 1910.
"E. c. PETERS,
"Notarv Public, First Judicial Circuit,
Territory of Hawaii
Sc0SA
back and forth between Cohen, Buehly
and Bartlett before Andrews had a
chance to make a statement.
Andrews statement was a general
denial of the facts set forth in the
affidavit. He stated that Bartlett had
called upon him, but, instead of the
offer of treachery being made by An
drews, the offer had come from Bart
bct Do, +1att
comparative stranger to him at the
time. the only other occasion on which
he had met him being when he was
deputy attorney general and was pre-
pairing to enter suit against the brew
cry to deprive that institution of its
license after the Beer Sunday which
Bartlett had engineered He had hs@
no reason to think that after that Bart
lett would be friendly.
Bartlett, however, had called on poll
ties and was treated courteously, An
drews' plan being to meet all factions
of the party and harmonic them. Bart
lett asked him what the situation was
in regard to the party and prohibition,
having been told that Joe Cooke was
determined to force prohibition plank
in the platform. As he (Bartlett) was
a Republican, he did not want to be
forced to fight the party, and wanted to
know what could be done. Andrews
stated that he thought there would be
no prohibition plank, because the party
included prohibitionists and antiprohibi-
tionists alike, and the party was bigger
than either faction. No one faction, in
his opinion, ought to prevail. He de-
MED fatty having either asked, suggest
4o1 j
cussed the matter of the liquor dealers
contributing towards the Republican
camraign fund. The statements made
in the affidavit were untrue on their
face.
No Results to Show.
Andrews then took up the question
Of having received money from Cohen
for having worked for his particular
candidacy. eff ] have worked for
Cohen, or for any one candidate. it
would surely be showing now he said
1.-The nominations for the convention
are only a week off. Now. where is
there a man who will say that I ever
asked him to work for Cohen, vote for
Cohen, or do anything out get in line
for the party and work for the success
of the partye'
Andrews cdlItd upon NumDeT OF
those present. heads Of number Of
precincts Each of these testified to
the good work Andrews had done
in harmonizing the workers, and
all denied having been asked or told
to work for any particular candidate.
Later. Wise made his statement His
Iaffidavit is vet to come.
The Five Hundred.
The meeting listened to a great many
of the details of how the antiprohibi
tionists raised their campaign fund,
how it was distributed and how it was
lspent 1t appears that there was a
question Of policy between Cohen and
the rest of the liquor dealers as to what
ought to be done in the way Of cam
Ipaign;ng. Cohen believed that the Re-
publican party ought to be enlisted to
help defeat the plebiscite, while T.
! Peters, the attorney for the liquor men.
advised them to tie up with the Demo
Gratis. At any rate. Cohen went to
California and got $4,000. BuchIy hav-
| ing gone to the same people and been
put off with $3.50. While in San Fran
! cisco Cohen stated that he had already
spent $500 of his own money and want
! ed it back, having instructed Andrews
to draw on him for that amount. II
his lnf+c-