Editorials
Saturday, January 9, 1999

Senators have reached
a sensible compromise

DEMOCRATIC and Republican senators have restrained, at least for the moment, the bitter partisanship that characterized the House of Representatives' handling of President Clinton's impeachment.

The agreement reached yesterday in a rare closed session in the Old Senate Chamber on the procedure for the impeachment trial cut short unseemly bickering that erupted after the formal opening of the Senate trial on Thursday. By deferring action on the most controversial issues, the pact permitted the process to get under way.

Under the plan, the House of Representatives -- which has appointed 13 members to lead the prosecution -- and the White House each gets 24 hours of floor time, about three days, to present its case. The House presentation is to begin next Thursday.

Senators will get 16 hours for questions through Chief Justice William Rehnquist. After that, senators will be free to make motions -- either to adjourn the trial and move to censure the president or to subpoena witnesses and produce evidence not in the House record.

The motion to dismiss the charges will be heard before the motion to subpoena witnesses. If it passes the trial will end. If it fails -- and the Democrats would need help from the Republican side to succeed -- the vote on subpoenaing witnesses will be taken -- initially only for the taking of depositions. A later vote will be required to have witnesses testify in person, which may reduce the prospect of creating a circus-like atmosphere during sensational testimony.

The Democratic plan would not have allowed any witnesses. It would have given each side two days to present its case and the senators two days to ask questions. There would have been one day for closing arguments and two days for deliberations.

This had the merit of a quick decision, allowing the Senate to move on to other matters with a minimum of disruption. The Democrats and particularly the White House want to conclude the trial as quickly as possible and turn the nation's attention away from Clinton's problems.

A majority of Americans agree, according to opinion surveys. But the Senate has an obligation under the Constitution to conduct a credible trial, which probably requires witnesses. Even if no senatorial minds were changed by the testimony, at least there would be a semblance of judiciousness.

Proposals to short-circuit the process and pass a resolution of censure, rather than hold a trial, have been abandoned, and it seems just as well. Censure may be the ultimate outcome, but it should not come before the Senate has heard the evidence.

Fireworks mischief

ANOTHER reason to ban fireworks on Oahu is the post-New Year's Eve "displays" -- some of which are ignited in Hawaii's public schools. This week, a homemade bomb exploded in a stairwell of Campbell High's science/math building, sending 10 students with "ringing in the ears" to St. Francis-West Hospital. "We're experiencing what we experience every New Year," said Campbell Principal Louis Vierra. "School starts and the bombs go off."

Undoubtedly, it won't be an isolated incident. The low cost and large amount of imported firepower -- legal and otherwise -- at the end of '98 means a surplus lurking in the community, either being stored dangerously in private homes or bound for mischief by explosive-happy individuals. HPD Detective James Kawakami said the stash of firecrackers and aerials still out there means a temptation to create homemade bombs, some fashioned from seemingly harmless sparklers.

After a war-zone-like, smoke-filled New Year's Eve, Governor Cayetano has joined in the chorus to ban fireworks on Oahu. Members of the Legislature must take seriously their obligation to at least consider such a change in the law. If they don't wish to tackle this issue, they should relinquish the responsibility to the counties, where the decision rightly belongs.

Japanese internees

DURING World War II more than 2,200 ethnic Japanese were taken from their homes in 13 Latin American countries and confined by the U.S. military to camps in this country as security risks. Now the aging survivors will receive a letter of apology from President Clinton.

About half of the 676 former internees, starting with the oldest, will also receive financial compensation. That's not enough. Congress should see to it that all are compensated.

A settlement of their claims provides for payments of $5,000 each, but the fund set up to pay reparations is nearly dry, and Congress has not replenished it.

The experience of the Japanese Latin Americans was similar to that of Japanese Americans who were interned or had property seized during the war. But they were excluded from the $1.6 billion reparations program set up in 1988 to compensate the Japanese Americans.

In 1996 the former Latin American internees sued for reparations. The settlement was proposed last June, and the former internees had about two months to respond.

The money to pay the $5,000 settlements is the remainder of the fund established to pay $20,000 in reparations to eligible Japanese Americans. That program officially ended last summer.

In his letter to the former internees, Clinton noted the available funds may not be large enough and said he supports adding to them. Congress has not acted on the issue.

It should. There is no excuse for failing to provide compensation, even in such a token amount and at this late date, to all who qualify.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor