Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-10-29
Ward SYSTEM FINALLY DOWNED;
ACHrS AMENDMENT IS CARRIED

on this important measure not late
than Monday night
The convention passed through I.
sections Of the charter last night. Che
most notable progress which II has so
Tar made. and the session WAS adj.
iourned to continue at 1880 o'clock to-
might. +
Delegate Owens Position. sf. III
+ Delegate C. G.Owen objects to hay.
ing his action on Wednesday evening
classed by the minority leaders as a
-blander.".. when he believes he took.
the only fair course to all. He fully
explains his position in the following
letter to the Star Bulletin, also taking
a lively rap at Senator Chillingworth:
Honolulu, T. H., Oct. %. 1915.
Editor Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Sir:-From an article published in
your last nights edition / most Ger.
tainly object to an attempt being MAIDS.
to prove someone the goat for failure
of the progressive minority of the
charter convention to carry out an un.
fair parliamentary trick. Had the vote
carried to prevent further considera,
ton OF Section 6 of the majority draft
as amended by Senator Achi tine &C
ton of those Of us who gave our eff
forts to obtain short ballot form OF
city administration would be as un
fair as some of the tactics attempted
in the early days Of the convention by
the ward-system deyotees. As last
nights session proved. Senator Achi's
amendment was voted for as a fair
compromise measure, and the cofiven
ton can thank those members who
voted against Mr.. Chillngworth's dosi.
ble-faced motion and thereby passed
the six-superyisor measure without
having to be accused of trickery 49,
Respectfully.
&c. G. OWEN.
Tactics Defended.
: In support of Senator Chilling
worth's tactics, the following letter
was written by Attorney r. w. Brock
ons to Chillingworth:
Honolulu, Hawaii, Oct. %, 1915.
Honorable Charles F. Chillingworth,
Honolulu, HAWAII,
My dear Charley: Noticing a critf
cism of you in the paper of this morn
ing. thought 1t might be OF interest
to you to know that the course pur-
sued by you in moving reconsidera-
tion Is one which is rearly always fol-
lowed in Congress In the case Of bills
which have finally been passed over
opposition. Indeed, It Is very rare to
find a case in the House where there
has been a roll call on, the passage of
the bill, that the motion ito reconsider
Is not made. t,sss
could multiply all sorts Of .illustra-
tons for you, but onlxna few, will be
accessory. i ~ aaf M. - 81
On March 3, 1916. a question which
had been much debated arose as to
whether the report of the conference
committee on the agricultural apprp-
priation bill should be adopted. The
chairman on thes augmentation .billl
was Mr. Lever HefWOn Aout con his
scrap and had the c6nfeseneesco commit
tee, agreed to. Il find this entry fol
lowing the announeemens Of the vote:
On motion of Mr. Lever, theTmOtion
to reconsider the yotesby which the
conference report was agreed to was
laid on the table. aai ssffss =
On the same day there was present
ed q neutrality resolution, Mr.. Under
wood being the gentleman handling
the resolution at vas riGa1F adopted,
with the Senate amendments. Then
find this entry:
"On motion of Mr.. Underwood, a
motion to reconsider the vote by
which the Senate amendments were
concurred in was laid on the table.
have quoted but two cases. but II
the methods employed by you in NOV
ing to reconsider be attacked as I'M
usual, can quote you thousands. As
q matter of fact, If the question at
issue was vital one-which ] judge
from the papers, it was-I should
have pursued exactly the same tao
tics that you did.
imagine the trouble was that your
delegates did not understand the mo-
ton. and If INDUCED in any criticism
at all it would be that you did not
fully post them on the subject.
Very sincerely yours, -.
r. w. BRECKoNS.