The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1917-03-09

DYA VOTE Of fourteen TO one the
Rnti-booze, or prohibition-plebis.
cite hill passed third reading in
the senate yesterday afternoon and
goes this morning to the house, where
II win pass first reading by title and
later be referred 10 the house Judiciary
committee for an examination as to
legality. .....
Originally the plebiscite bill was due
TO come up before the upper house yes.
terday afternoon, but, on the day pre-
eeding, in en- effort to hasten the action
on the bill IL was, nevertheless, put
over until today. Yesterday the sub.
iect was reconsidered, with the result
that IL was voted back on its first
schedule, was brought up, read through
out ON third perusal, more or less dis
enHsed, and passed final reading as far
as the senate IL concerned, TO be turned
over to the tender mereies Of the lower
chamber.
In the lower house, according TO the
prophecies Of the senators, Senate Bill
80, for that is its official title, is going
70 get all that everybody expects. 1t is
whispered that one Of the intended
amendments Is TO make il mis-
demeanor for anybody at the referen,
qim so much Ms 70 suggest 20 voter
t4pt he vote for or against the bill. The
liquor interests are lined up in force,
and a great amount of money is going to
be spent to defeat the bill at the polls
Senator Single stated yesterday, in
the senate, In the course of speaking
on the merits Of the measure, that even
the swets,p the saloon people, were
in favor Of the matter being put up to
the people on a plebiscite. On the other
hand the liquor interests declare, so il
is stated by those ia touch, that they
intend TO beat the anti.booze measure
on the vote on July IA, at the rate of
AZ least two TO one.
why Robinson Voted .'No''
There was but one dissenting voice
when the vote on the final passage Of
the prohibition-plebiscit bill was
called, and that was the vote of Sen
ator w. T. Robinson. ..-. ...
Asked, after the afternoon session,
why Il vas that he voted ''no,'' Sen.
ator Robinson declared that he did not
wish to vote in favor of bill that he
considered Inconsistent. He looked up
on the measure as a bill backing class
legislation, for the reason that min.
listers Of the Gospel were allowed to
get liquor, as were also physicians
whereas the common or garden variety
Of everybody, ordinary citizen was
barred from the liquor privileges OF
clergymen, doctors and invalids. Is Z
"If IL was straight-out and out
bDne-dry anti booze bin, - said Robin
son, 81 would vote for it. But ] can
not vote for this bill. and, incidentally
this bill will never be instrumental IL
bringing prohibition to Hawaii. We
have liquor law on our statute books
today that can be used for the sup
precision OF the liquor traffic, II the
people desire that the liquor traffic BIZ
suppressed. If that law cannot be work
cd, then what is the use of seeking II
apply any such measure as this so
called prohibition billf The law at pre-
sent 10 such that il enough people IN
a section shall protest against the is
snance Of liquor license, the iquol
license will not be issued"
Castle For Home Rule
Senator Castle, chairman of the ju
dietary committee, which committed
went over the last amendments TO the
prohibition-plebise bill, TO avoid pos
sibility of attack in the courts on iti
eOnstitutionality, was the author of tbs
last senatorial speech to be made on
the measure before it passed out of tht
hands of the solons to 90 to the lOwel
house.
Aside from being in favor Of any bill
that sought to eradicate liquor from th'
Isles Of Paradise, Senator Castle de
ciared that IL was proposition OF
home rule that largely concerned til,
people Of Hawaii. .. ..,,r
III there were proposed measure 4
call for enactment Of prohibition BY
federal enactment. said CASTLE. h
would most certainly vote against II
for the reason that he Thought tina
this Territory was perfectly able h
handle such matters, as they should b.
handled, without calling on the fedora
government for authority or aid. Hi
reading of the Organic Act told hin
clearly that IL was the right of tn
legislature of Hawaii to do as it wishet
20 do in the matter Of regulating tn
liquor traffic in these Islands, r..
"a Bug In the Bill -. ...
Senator Paehec0 had drawn the at
tention Of the senate to clause in tn
bill which, he thought, might be re
sponsible for considerable confusion il
the future, and that was the seetio
that provided that, In the event of tn
people failing TO vote for "dry" o.
July IA, the liquor business would b
continued under the same law unde
which IL is at present conducted. Pa
eheco was under the impression that
In the event of the legislature happen
ing TO amend this present liquor Law
in some way, the passage by the vot
of the people fof the prohibition pleb
settle bill would result in killing th
law under which the liquor business
now allowed and regulated. He bt
lieyed this 10 be bug, or mierobe, /
the bill. ....t ,...,...
In reply TO this warning issued b
Pacheco, Senator Castle stated tina
such thought had also occurred to men
bers Of the Judiciary committee whic
had had the anti, booze bill in its handi
but that he, Castle, chairman of tina
COMMITTEES, while he believed the pro
posed new law, in a narrow sense, wa