of the outer islands. A 41-member house apportioned on the basis of 1950 registered voters achives this identical result. A 51-member house would confuse legislative processes unnecessarily and would add substantially to the cost to the taxpayers. This is surely a great price to pay for the privilege of adding the 3 additional outer island members that a 51-member house would provide.

Because the voters in Hawaii have never been given an opportunity to express themselves on this single question, it is porposed to this committee that they be given that opportunity. That is the substance of the first amendment which is now offered for your consideration. The second amendment deals with the date a new legislature would become effective.

It is now toward the end of June. Even if this measure were to pass the full Senate today and be signed by the President tomorrow, which is of course impossible, the time within which the two political parties of Hawaii would have to get qualified candidates for these addıtional legislative seats is too short to assure their success in doing so, and I am frank to say that it will be more difficult for the Democratic Party to get candidates than it will be for our opposition.

In Hawaii, as elsewhere, Republican legislators have for the most part been salaried employees of business concerns who find it advantageous to continue these salaries during legislative sessions. The Democratic Party members of the legislature, on the other hand, have been mostly persons who were self-employed or persons who practiced their professions by themselves and for whom service in the legislature has meant a substantial drop in income.

While competent and qualified persons can be and have been found to make this sacrifice, it is an extremely difficult task to accomplish and will take much more time than is available between now and the general election of 1956. The Democratic Party would find it difficult. even to get unqualified candidates on account of the expense involved in campaigning for election. This, as I said, is a problem which does not confront the Republican Party or a majority of the candidates who seek office on the Republican ticket.

Bearing this difficulty in mind and considering the fact that this bill proposes to increase the present House of Representatives in Hawaii by 70 percent-the equivalent of increasing the House in the State of Washington from 99 to 168, increasing the House in Arizona from 58 to 99, in California from 80 to 136 and in Nevada from 41 to 70, in West Virginia from 94 to 106-I am confident that this committee will appreciate the magnitude of the task. It is for this reason that we most earnestly propose that the effective date of this bill be postponed until the general election of 1958.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that conclude your statement?
Senator HEEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for your very fine statement.

The next witness will be Senator Kazuhisa Abe, Democratic Member of the Senate of Hawaii.

STATEMENT OF KAZUHISA ABE, MEMBER OF THE SENATE, TERRITORY OF HAWAII

Senator ABE. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a prepared statement because my trip was decided at the last moment. My name is Kazuhisa Abe. I am a member of the Territorial Senate from the Island of Hawaii. I subscribe to most of the statements just made by Senator Heen. However, at the outset I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that most of the witnesses who are going to appear today are from the island of Oahu, where the population is greatest. That is, about 70 percent of the people live in Oahu.

When it comes to the reapportionment of the senate, it is not an issue between the Republicans and the Democrats. It is an issue between the people of Oahu against the people of Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii.

Our good Delegate Farrington stated that she believes in proportionate representation in the house and representation in the senate based on geographical grounds. If you will study H. R. 8837, there is no basis for the makeup of the senate. What is a better geographical demarcation than the counties as they exist now, that is, the county of Hawaii composing the island of Hawaii; the county of Maui composing Maui, Molokai and Lana; and Kahoolawe; the city and county of Honolulu composing the island of Oahu; and the county of Kauai composed of the islands Kauai and Niihau.

I believe if Delegate Farrington believes in her proposal, all of the counties should have equal representation in the senate.

Then I would like to point out the noncontiguous position of all the counties. The island of Hawaii is separated by water for approximately 200 miles. The island of Maui is about 50 miles from Hawaii. The island of Molokai, which is a portion of the county of Maui, is approximately 50 miles from Oahu. Then the island of Kauai, which is on the extreme north, is approximately 100 miles from the island of Oahu.

That being the case, the people and the legislators who represent their respective counties tend to be prejudiced in favor of their respective counties.

Unlike the counties in the various States, the people of Hawaii, for example, the great majority, at least 99 percent of the people of Hawaii will not use any facilities of the county of Maui, nor the city and county of Honolulu, nor the county of Kauai. Therefore, there being no interdependency between the taxpayers as well as the people and the legislators who represent the people of the various counties, there will be a tendency of the representatives from the various counties to think solely what would benefit his respective county.

That being the case, if the present form of the bill is enacted, it will mean the city and county of Honolulu will have 33 members of a 51-member house, which is a great majority.

In the senate

Senator ANDERSON. 33 of 51?

Senator ABE. Yes, 33 of 51.

In the senate, the city and county of Honolulu will be entitled to 10 out of 25.

That being the case, what is to prevent the Oahu legislators from getting together with one of the outside counties, let us say the smallest population and also the smallest county, that is, Kauai. It is possible because of the overwhelming majority which the city and county of Honolulu enjoy in the house. If they are able to get 3 senators from Kauai to go along with their 10 senators, the city and county of Honolulu will be able to control all legislation in the Territorial legislature. I would like to point to that grave and serious danger. I am not saying that will happen, but in all fairness, like the Congress of the United States, where the House of Representatives is based on population and the Senate on geographical basis, that is, each State entitled to two Senators, I feel for the welfare of the people of the entire Territory the makeup of the senate should be based on equal senators from each of the various counties.

I think this is very important if proper checks and balances are to be enjoyed in the Territorial legislature.

Mr. Chairman, if you will examine a petition which was sent to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and also to the Subcommittee on Territories, that petition was signed by 2 Republican senators of the Territorial legislature from the island of Hawaii, 2 Democratic senators, which is 100 percent of the membership of the senators from Hawaii, 1 Republican representative from the island of Hawaii, and 2 Democratic representatives from the island of Hawaii.

As I have said, when it comes to representation in the senate, it is not an issue between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. May I repeat again it is an issue, as it is often called in the Territory of Hawaii, between the outside islands and the Island of Oahu.

I wish also to say at this time that I feel that the matter of reapportionment of our Territorial legislature should be left to the Territorial legislature, and I am confident that the next session of the Territorial legislature will enact legislation reapportioning the Territorial legislature. However, if the Members of the United States. Senate feel that Congress itself should reapportion the Territorial. legislature I would recommend that certain amendments be made to H. R. 8837.

One of the amendments would be that the Territorial legislature meet annually in one session for the consideration of the budget, because it is agreed and it is the general knowledge of all the people of the Territory of Hawaii that a 60-day session of the legislature every other year, that is on the odd-numbered year, does not give the legislators sufficient time to consider bills.

Another amendment I would suggest or recommend is that the salary of legislators be raised from $1,000 to $2,500 for the general session, and to $1,500 for each budget session.

As was stated by Senator Heen, and as I stated in my letter to both Senator Jackson and you, Mr. Chairman, the majority of the Republican legislators are employees of big corporations and in the past they have continued to draw salaries from the respective employers while serving in the Territorial session.

Senator ANDERSON. How many of them are employees of the socalled large corporations?

Senator ABE. At the present time I believe 3 out of 8 Republican legislators. In the past there have been more.

I feel if they continue to draw salaries from their private employers they cannot really serve the people of the Territory of Hawaii. As I stated in my letter, it has often been the case that a legislator was compelled indirectly, I believe, to vote on matters as dictated by officials of such corporations.

The reason I request or recommend the increase of salaries, as you all know, $1,000 for a session which lasts over 3 months is very inadequate, and we, as Senator Heen stated, are mostly those practicing professions or are self-employed. Whenever we take time to attend a session, especially from the outside island, it means leaving our practice and our business aside, which would naturally mean less income. I feel that an increase in salary would interest qualified men to seek election to the Territorial legislature and that would in general be for the best interests of the people of the Territory of Hawaii.

Senator ANDERSON. How long has the $1,000 salary been in effect? Senator ABE. I believe for the last 20 years, has it not? That was in 1919, was it?

Senator HEEN. Since 1926 when I first went to the Territorial senate.

Senator ANDERSON. Was it in effect before then?

Senator HEEN. I think it was before that.

Senator ABE. Originally I believe it was $500, and I thought it was increased to a thousand dollars since the enactment of the organic act.

Senator ANDERSON. Did you say that the city and county of Honolulu would have 33 of the 51 members of the senate?

Senator ABE. Of the house of representatives.

Senator ANDERSON. And 10 of the 25 members of the senate.
Senator ABE. That is right, under the proposed bill.

Senator ANDERSON. What does it have in the way of population?
Senator ABE. About 70 percent of the total population.

As I said, I do not mind the house of representatives being apportioned according to population. I feel that is only proper. However, I am apprehensive of the makeup of the senate. As I said, the makeup of the senate as proposed in H. R. 8837 is a compromise without sound basis. To tell you what I know, I believe the delegates to the constitutional convention from the island of Hawaii were against the proposal, and I was informed-by a delegate who attended the convention shortly before I left Hilo-that the delegation from Hawaii voted for the proposal because the island of Hawaii was given one more senator than it was originally intended. From what I hear, the original intention was for the island of Hawaii to have 6 senators, Maui 5, and Kauai 5.

As you know, the present makeup of the senate from the city and county of Hawaii, also the island of Hawaii, is four. They increase the number by three. They increase the number of senators from Maiu by 2 and the number of senators from Kauai by 1. I believe the one was given from what was originally intended for Honolulu. That is how the makeup of the senate was decided in the constitutional convention.

Senator ANDERSON. You don't follow either rule here, do you?
Senator ABE. No.

Senator ANDERSON. If you took the members of the house and based it solely on population, you say you would have 70 percent

of the members coming from this one area, where you have only 65 percent; 33 is hardly 70 percent.

Senator ABE. Thirty-three out of fifty-one.

That is my statement. I would be glad to answer any questions. I would like to state this, Mr. Chairman, which I forgot: The total area of the Territory of Hawaii is 6,435 square miles. The island of Hawaii consists of 4,030 square miles. All the other islands combined make up 2,405 miles. In other words, the island from which I come is almost twice as large as all of the other islands combined.

Senator ANDERSON. Do you come from the island of Hawaii?
Senator ABE. Yes, the southernmost island.

Senator ANDERSON. Where do you live there?

Senator ABE. Hilo.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that complete your testimony?

Senator ABE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your very good statement.

The next witness will be Charles Kauhane, speaker, house of representatives, Territorial legislature.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. KAUHANE, SPEAKER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TERRITORY OF HAWAII

Mr. KAUHANE. Mr. Chairman, I am Charles E. Kauhane, speaker of the House of Representatives of the 1955 Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii. I was elected to the house of representatives first in 1943 and have been reelected in 1945, 1947, 1949, 1953, and 1955. During the period of Republican control I have served as minority floor leader.

I wish to thank the subcommittee for the privilege of testifying upon this all-important bill, H. R. 8837, providing for reapportionment of our legislature upon the same basis as provided in the Hawaii State constitution.

I was a member of the Hawaii State constitutional convention, and took a very active part in the debates upon various portions of the proposed State constitution, especially the legislative articles. For the most part, I even supported Judge Heen, who was also a delegate and who was chairman of the convention committee on legilative powers and functions, in his fight for a smaller legislature.

All the arguments that you are bearing now in favor of a smaller legislature, and even more facts and arguments pro and con, were presented to that convention and debated fully. But the minority, of which I was one, in favor of such a smaller legislature was unable to persuade the majority to accept our view, and we were voted down in every attempt. The legislative articles were among the very last to be presented to the convention, because they were so controversial, and the debate upon these articles was the longest we had upon any subject. We made a terrific fight and lost, and when we lost, we then agreed to go along with the majority on the entire constitution and we signed it 62 out of 63 members.

PROPOSALS APPROVED IN LEGISLATURE

The matter was then presented to a special session of the legislature called for the primary purpose of considering only the proposed