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

I This committee reported On Marcl
10. favoring the bill and SUGGESTING
some minor changes. However. il was
net 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 il was violation of
the platform pledge and the good faith
Of the Republican party.
That this was his attitude is clear
! ~ shown in the brief minority report
he made when the majority of the
committee favored the bill. Senator
Fairchild wrote:
Il 10 not concur il the f1re:; ,iIg
report, being pledged tc cp,hI. e anv
change N the present law"
1t was We'll recognized 1t tn. time
mat Senator Moores bill was ma
terial change in the existing law. His
Dill 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-
pea.s were to be made to the circuit
court and might be carried up 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 favoring 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 II, the day after it had been
postponed, and carried on second read.
ing by a 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 II to 4. Quinn again voted
to pass the bill and another RepubIi.
can who voted for il was Charles r.
chillineWerth.
From the senate the bill was trans
mitted to the mouse.
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 were against any change.
Even before the bill reached the
house, opposition to it was shown
there AS early as March Is petitions
began to pour in, asking that the pres
ent liquor law be maintained Repre-
sentative j. K. Kamanouiu on March 13
introc-lced 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. --s- -
The senate bill reached.the house on
March Is and On March "a was re-.
ferred to the cetnmittee on finance. D..
At this timei the house received a
significant resolution from the execu.
tive committee of the Republican ter.
| ritorial committee These Republican
representatives sent to the house a
resolution declaring against proposed
amendments to the liquor law.
1t was recognized that the Moore
bill should not be favored by Republi-
cans because It called for. material
change in the liquor law, in violation
of the platform pledge. ~.-.:s.> >
1t was en- March 26 when the Repub-
lican committee took this stand. On
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-
clared the provisions for court ap-
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 6 the house up
held the committee report and killed
the bill by indefinite postponement.
In view of Quinn's record of sup,
porting this bill in the senate. those.
who took part in the fight of 1909 are
now preparing to oppose him in the
primary nominating election. g.. .,
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 it was.
generally regarded as making very ma.
teriaI changes In the law ard the rec.
ord shows further that the Republican
executive committee opposed the
amendments called for in the Moore
bill. :-. -
-