Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-08-26
Fight ON {. v. QUINN STARTED
BYTHOSE Who REMEMBER 1909

10, favoring the bill and suggesting
some minor changes. However, it was
not unanimous report, for Senator
George H. Fairchild. the chairman OF
the committee and one of the Repub.
lican leaders, absolutely refused to
stand for the bill. He took the def
! mite stand that It was violation of
/ the platform pledge and the good faith
Of the Republican party.
That this was his attitude Is clear
! ly shown in the brief minority report
I he made when the majority of the
committee favored the bill. Senator
Fairchild- wrote:
Il 10 MT concur il the fore:s ling
report, being pledged to cpp,,. e any
change IN the present law
II was well recognized at the time
that Senator Moore's bin was a ma,
terial change in the existing Law. His
bill added an entirely new section to
the bill, under which Liquor men were
to be allowed appeals from decisions
Of the license commission. The ap-
peas were to be made to the circuit
| court and might be carried I'D to the
supreme court.
The effect of the Moore bill was to
take away the most effective authority
and practically all discretion from the
license commission, allowing liquor
| men the right-to appeal but no right
of appeal was given to the public.
The report of the ways and means
committee fayoring this bill was sign.
ed by Quinn, j., T. Brown, Moore, and
w. j. Coelho, with Senator Fairchild
opposing the bill.
On Thursday. March II, further &C,
ton on the bill was postponed to
March 81. However, before that time
the liquor men evidently wished to get
action. for the bill was brought up on
March IL, the day after it had been
postponed, and carried on second read.
ing by vote of 10 to 5. ..... ..., =,
Quinn voted with Moore and the 9TH
ers to carry the bill. ~. .> -.
On Wednesday, March II, the bill
passed third reading in the senate by
vote of IL to 4. Quinn again voted
to pass the bill and another RepubIi..
can who voted for. Il was Charles r.
chilIingWcrth. 81
From the senate the bill was trans.
mitted to the house. - +
Meanwhile a remarkable public sen.
timent against the bill had arisen. This
opposition to the bill was particularly
strong among Hawaiians. They recog.
nized the value of the existing liquor
law and we're against any change.
Even before the bill reached the
house, opposition to it was shown
there. As early as March i13 petitions
began to pour in, asking that the pres
ent liquor law be maintained. Repre-
sentative ]. X. Kamanoulu on March Is
introcaced a petition signed by no less
than 700 voters against the Moore bill
Representative. Nakaleka introduced
another petition from more than 100
petitioners of Maui, also against the
bill. Il
The senate bill reached the house an
March Is and onn March "a was re-
ferred to the committee on finance.
At this time the house received a
significant resolution from the execu-
tive committee of the Republican ter
ritorial committees. These Republican
representatives sent to the house al
resolution declaring against proposed
amendments to the liquor law.
1t was recognized that the Moore
bill should not besfavored by Republic.
cans because il called for materialI
change in the liquor law, in violation
of the platform pledge.
1t was on March 26 when the Repub-
lican committee took this stand. Ont
the same afternoon, the committee on
finance reported adversely on the
Moore bill, recommending that it be
Indefinitely postponed
The report of this committee severe
ly condemned the Moore bill. II de- /
cIared the provisions for a court APP
peal TO be particularly vicious" and
said that the proposed amendments
would ruin the good law already in
force, which was. working satisfactory
ly.
By vote of "a to the house up
held the committee report and killed
the bill by indefinite postponement.
In view of Qtinn's record of sup
porting this bill in the senate, those
who took part in the fight of 1909 are1
now preparssg to oppose him in the
primary nominating election.
Quinn said then and still says that
he supported the bill because it made
no material change in the existing
law, but the record shows that il was
generally regarded as making very ma.
teriaI changes In the law and the rec
ord shows further that the Republican
executive committee opposed the
amendments called for in the Moore
bill.
IL y