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

That's the point at issue,
This talk about conspiracy and
turning the Republican party over to
the Democrats is bunCOmb, as far as
the average man can make out Each
OF the men whom Cohen makes tho
special object of his attack, has de-
clared publicly and privately that the
present liquor law is all right and
should stand as II is. II II were true
that the Republican party was TO be
padded over to the Democratic fold,
and II II were possible to deliver any
such foolish package, the Democrats
would hardly be such fOols-though
the Democrats do some silly things
to come out with any scheme for tam
permg with the liquor law. They, or
| any other marty approving such u
move, would be so numerically
dumped that they wouldn't know
which end they were on. The people
would do to them what they did to
the Prohibitlonists, and then some.
SO this argument of Cohen's does
not work out. He can make all the
charges he wants regarding conspir-
acies, but the public in its final anal
ysis takes into consideration the horse
sense of all men.
What's more, in this particular con-
nection, the facts will show that the
charges laid by men associated with
the liquor business, which charges
implicate Andrews and Cohen. were
not made on their own initiative but
we're presented to citizens OF Homo
| lulu in refutatiOn of the reckless as
| 5ertions that Cohen has been making
in his fury to gain support for his
senatorial candidacy
| The pith of the situation so far as
the Republican Central Committee has
to do with II, is the activities of An
drews. lie, at the time this is written
has not been heard in specific answer
to the afiidavits.
AS remarked before, Cohen declared
openly that he, as an Anti-Prohibi'
don worker, was paying men that An
lrews, the manager of the Republi
can party, named Tor him. Andrews
ieard this and did not deny IT,
| Now what business had Andrews N
The organizer of the Republican party
o have any finger in the PlebiEcit,
Die anyway?
Was it not distinctly understoo,
that the plebiscite fight was to be con
lucted entirely Independent OF the po
i;ical parties?
Was It not accepted that the Re
publican organization of all othel
organizations should keep out of thu
bitter strife which the Prohibition
contest was certain to engender.
Did ]. =. Cooke, when he employed
Andrews, tell him that II, would be al
right to pick out Republican worker
or Cohens service?
II not, what in the name of all tina
$ decent and fair in politics and tn,
ordinary square deal, was Andrew
lOing furnishing any Prohibitionist o
Nnti-Prohi6itionist with the names o
men associated with the Republican
organization. these men to be paid b.
Toe Cohen or any other plebiscite cam
paigner. for Prohibition or against 1t
That's what the party manager
lwant 20 face as one point deserving
most serious consideration in thi
natter even with the facts that ar
now known and admitted.
Was Andrews, as the paid organize
If the PARTY authorized to turn owe
Iis workers, or pick out Republican
q be paid by Cohen or anyone else
II he dabbled in the plebiscite poll
lies was he doing his duty?
And do the Republican manager
eel that Andrews was true to hi
rust as the party representative whel
he thus connected himself and hi
party in the mix-up of the plebiscite
The people await with more thai
ordinary concern the action and dec
aration of the committee, that viii
show what sort Of political method
ire upheld by the men primarily re
iponsible. ..