The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-12-09
he LOSES HIS CLERKS5IP IN
TdE SUPREME COURT.
The Full Text OF the Courts Decision
in This Cause CeIebre Given
Below.

disturbing to that gentleman's feel
ings- The Court found that he had
violated his oath of allegiance to
the Provisional Government and
that he deserved to be removed.
The full text of the decision fol-
lows:
BEFORE THE JUSTICES or THE sU-
PREsIE COURT.
In the matter of the alleged mfscon-
duct of +. w. Wundenberg, a
DeputyClerk of the Judiciary De-
partment and Clerk of the Circuit
Court, First Circuit.
JUDD, c.J., BIcKERToN AND FREAR, -.
OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.
BY the statute, Section 50 of the Act
to Reorganize the Judiciary Depart
ment, which went Into effect January
I, 1898, Gall clerks (of the Judiciary
Department., shall be liable to remOv-
al for inefficiency or misconduct by
the Justices of the Supreme Court"
By implication and by well considered
decisions on similar statutes a removal
can be made, not at the pleasure of
the Justices, but only after charges
have been preferred against the Off
Ger, q reasonable time given him to
prepare his defense, and opportunity
10 cross-examine the witnesses against
him, and be heard in his own defense.
1t will thus be seen that the tenure
of office of the clerks of the Judiciary
Department differs from that of clerks
of other departments, who are remOv-
able at the pleasure of those appoint
ing them. The requirement of the
statute has been complied with in the
present case. This is a quasi.judicial
investigation and, although it need
not be conducted with the fOrmality
and solemnity of a criminal trial, we
have thought it best to proceed in this
instance according to the rules of jul
dicial procedure.
The information was presented by
the Attorney-Gener on his official
oath charging misconduct of the re-
spondent, who is clerk of this de-
partment, and was amended at the
request of the respondent by stating
particulars of the charges. These con-
sisted of statements alleged to have
been made by respondent on several
occasions to various persons (naming
them) indicating hostility and dis
LOYALTY to the Provisional Govern
ment and intended and designed to
bring into contempt this Government
and its principal officers.
One of the charges was of state
-ments alleged to have been made on
or about April Goth last to Col. j. IL.
Blount, Special Commissioner of the
United States, which are alleged to be
malicious, untrue and misleading.
The respondent in his answer denied
each and every allegation in the in
formation. The particulars of the
language used to Mr.. Blount were set
-
duced to show that respondent had
made the alleged statements to Mr..
Blount, and the Attorney-General
called the respondent himself as
witness. But the respondent declined
to take the witness stand in behalf of
the prosecution and claimed that he
was not compellable under the Con-
stitution and laws of this country to
give evidence against himself. And
a majority of the Justices felt that as
the proceeding was of a criminal
nature in that the result might be re-
moyal from office he could claim this
immunity.
Respondent was then asked by the
Acknowledgement if he would admit
that he had made these statements:
Under advice of counsel he declined
to admit anything. The Attorney
General called a number of witnesses
to substantiate the other charges
made who gave evidence and were
cross-examined. The Attorney-Gen-
eral having closed, the respondent
nut on witnesses for the purpose of
rebutting the evidence against him
and took the stand himself. On his
cross-examination he was asked by
the Acknowledgement what state
ments he had made to Mr.. Blount, he
having admitted that he had met
Mr.. BIount and talked with him.
His counsel objected to his answer
ING this question and we suS-
tanned the objection on the
ground that this question was not
proper on cross-eXamination, 1t not
having been brought out on the direct
examination: Later on, ms couusel
having withdrawn their objection TO
the question being asked, respondent
himself declined to answer 1t.
The charges of misconduct must,
therefore, rest upon the evidence OF
the statements made by respondent
other than those made to Col. Blount.
1t is unnecessary to detail the evil
dence or comment upon 1T. we are
satisfied on n careful consideration OF
IL that the respondent, although ac-
tive in his support of the Provisional
Government for a short time lmme-
diateIy after its establishment,
changed his attitude and on several
occasions denounced in violent ana
bitter language the Provisional Gov
eminent and its chief officers.
We are very much impressed with
the view that this change of senti-
ment is to be attributed to his disap-
pointment in not obtaining the office
of Marshal, which he was led to eX-
pect would be given him.
While liberty is accorded to every
man to entertain his own opinions
and even to express them on proper
occasions and in proper manner as
to the policy of those in control OF the
Government, yet everyone, and espe-
ciaiIy those in the employment of the
Government, is in duty bound to sup
port and be loyal to it. 1t is improper
conduct for those who hold responsible
offices under the Government ana en-
ioy its emoluments to use language
tending 20 disparage the Government
and weaken its authority This is not
a question of party Int goes
- ,,aru axisfenp< am
ment.
The respor
continr