Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-02-17
EDITOR

tie, combined with Oahu i'm the fight for this plan
in 1911, but trades and deals i'm the closing hours
of the session caused the indefinite postpone
ment of the measure after it was practically
passed. @5 ...... .~.... . .:,....<# <..
Now under the provisions of the Organic Act,
basing apportionment On citizen population, the
effects Of a new deal would be quite different.
according TO the figures of the experts, Hawaii
would lose one senator, and though East Hawaii
wonld gain representative, West Hawaii would
lose one. Maui would lose one senator and one
representative, and Kauai would lose one repre-
sentative. Oahu would gain two senator's and
two representatives Thus it is question wheth-
or Maui will favor reapportionment as strongly
as under the 1911 plan, where the Valley Isle
would have lost considerably less. On the other
hand, Kauai will lose little by the Organic Act
plan.
At the outset of the legislature it seems GER
tain that any attempt to repeat the fight of 1911
on the 1911 plan will plunge the members in a
long and bitter factional sqaubble, with no def
mite prospect of putting through the scheme to
completion. The arguments for reapportionment
on the basis of voting population consist mainly
in the assertion that Oahu is the island of over
whelming Importance and hence should be given
much greater proportional representation.
There is some merit to this argument but not
conclusive merit. OF course Oahu has had mea-
ger legislative pckings in recent years. Kauai,
by virtue of a veteran band of Legislators who
have held together, has dominated both house
and senate and Hawaii has held the speakership
of the house for several terms. Yet after all, has
the power been so greatly abused that Oahu
should insist ON a reapportionment plan that, to
place the sceptre of strength in Oahu's hands,
would necessitate amending the Organic Act?
Moreover, is the voting population the fair
basis, the logical basis? Does the legislature
r,prsent the voters of the territory or the whole
citizenship of the territory?
There are two real dangers not far ahead if
this legislature gets into factional fight over
apportiGnment. One is that Congress, after vain
ly waiting for the legislature to act, will itself
come in and make the apportionment. That has
been done once before, and this territory certain
~ does net want to get the reputation of forcing
Congress to do what the fair-minded and intelli-
gent Americans of Hawaii ought to do for them
selves
The other danger is that factional fight over
apportionment will involve, delay and probably
defeat work of vastly greater Importance to the
welfare of this territory. The Legislature of
1918 has an immense amount of public service
work to do. 1t has public utilities commission
act to pass, it must deal with pressing public
lands and water questions; it must pass direct
primary act; it should take up corrupt prac-
tices act. Honolulus municipal government de-
mands some changes. There is legislation to be
shaped against election frauds against greed,
against misuse of power. There are laws to be
passed for the common good of the common peg
pie, for the sons and daughters of Hawaii.
And in the face of this stirring demand for
broad-minded lawmaking for patriotic law
making, for progressive law-making, are the law
makers of 1913 to throw their brilliant oppor-
tunities into the gutter of factional politics?
The Republican party cannot afford such fight.
Nor can any party.
Gentlemen of the legislature, the territory is
looking to you to write the record of 1913 as a
record of progress not of retrogression.
The territory will hardly indorse factional
fight such as will surely come if any attempt is
made to revive the scheme of 1911 The Organic
Act is specific. So are the Oaths that members
of the legislature take to carry out the duties for
which they are elected. -