The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1910-05-03
opFWING INTERESTS FOUGHT
AGAINST PLEBISCITE BILL
s,ooorters Said Little, but Carried It in the
House by More Than Two to One...
Other Hawaiian Measures
There was no objection.

The Speaker. The gentleman from
Michigan is entitled to twenty minutes
under the rules, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Stafford) to twenty
minutes
Mr.. Hamilton. Mr.. Speaker. this SEN
ate joint resolution No 50 is the result
of a compromise growing out Of the fact
that bills were introduced in the
house and in the senate providing
for absolute prohibition in the Ter
ritory of Hawaii Hearings We're
conducted before the senate. commit
tee. and objections were made by Off
cials and representatives of the Ter
ritory of Hawaii and various CONNER
cial bodies, on the ground that the pro
posed bill would enforce prohibition
upon the people, in violation, as they
claimed. Of their right of home rule,
and that the people themselves ought to
be given the opportunity to say
whether they want prohibition in the
Territory Of Hawaii. The Delegate
from Hawaii Mr.. Kalanianaolel APP
peared before the senate committee and
| was heard upon the proposition. and
finally he introduced resolution
similar to this in the house, and this
resolution was introduced in the senate.
| The senate resolution was favorably re
| ported and passed that body. and came
! to the committee on the Territories of
! the house in regular order.
! Mr.. Bartlett of Georgia. As I I'M
derstand this proposition. it Is what
ie called a local option proposition, to
! give the legally qualified voters of the
! Territory of Hawaii an opportunity to
vote upon the question whether or not
| Intoxicating liquors shall be sold OF
manufactured in that Territory.
Mr.. Hamilton. That is just about 1t
| Mr.. Bartlett of Georgia. Does this
] resolution propose to change any law
! of the Territory of Hawaii with refer
cnce to the qualified electorate of tina
Territory?
Mr. Hamilton. They have an excel
! lent election law there.
Mr. Bartlett of Georgia. Do not the
| local authorities of the Territory fix the
qualifications for registration and pro
| vide who may be entitled to vote?
| do not mean by these questions to sug
gest that I am opposed to the resolu
ton. because upon matters of this sOr
7 think it is very proper that the 10
! calitv affected should have a right K
pass upon it. it being q question tina
affects the good order and morals o
the community, and therefore / thInl
it is right that the people should de
termine by their votes whether th
traffic should be carried or or not An
other reason is that if you get behInH
this proposition the sentiment Of I'll
people it can be invoked and enforced
and otherwise it can not be. The pur
pose Of my question is to find on
whether or not the joint resolution, il
combining t to those who may vote o
. the proposition, to the voters now regis
iStered. which would make It SIX 0
seven months prior t. the time PR
vided for in the election, IS wise.
Mr.. Hamilton. 7 doubt if the Ian
guago of the resolution Is susceptible
to the Interpretation which the gentle
- man puts upon it, Perhaps the gentle
! man refers to the language
Mr. Bartlett of Georgia. As | III
der~tood the reading from the clerk
desk, it was confined 10 the voter
now registered.
Mr. Hamilton The bill reads:
: ..Thar the governor Of the Terrltor
= of Hawaii be. and he is hereby, author
4 lied and directed to call q special eIet
- ton hv the legally qualified oIecto'
rs now registered in that Territory.
Mr. SABBATH Can the gentleman stat
- the qualifications Of the electorate O
Hawaii2
(, Mr. Hamilton. / can state it ra tt
D gentleman for | took the pains OF a
pertaining what the election law of Hs