Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1898-03-04
Resolution on District Magistrates Goes
Over 10 Monday.
Several Speeches Made Bill Relating 10 ubel
Monday for Roads and
School Houses

lister Damon aud Attorney Gener-
al Smith we're present at yester-
day afternoons session of the
House.
Mr.. Achi's motion of the fore
noon to lay the resolution respect.
ing the approval of warrants by
prosecuting officers on the table
was lost by unanimous vote. Mr..
Achi was not present at the time.
Mr.. Kasi favored the resolution.
The practise of securing the en-
dorsement of prosecuting officers
to warrants before processes were
caused to issue was not law. He
desired to have the law, and only
the law, complied with. There
were complications in the outer
districts on account of the prac
tise. The prosecuting officers,
being equal with the Judge in
the matter, sometimes refused to
approve warrants, and vice versa,
when cases had to be transferred
to another court.
Mr.. Smith said that the practise
was not in defiance of any law.
On the other hand it was in &C
cord with law. Of the three bran
ches Of Government the Judiciar y
had charge of the courts, and the
Attorney General the police.
The whole matter of presenting
criminal prosecutions is in the de
partment of Attorney General
and officers of that department
were authorized to enter nolle
prosequi, and should also be fully
authorized to use discretion in
bringing suits. The practise Of
giving this power to prosecuting
officers originated with Judge
Preston when he was Attorney
General.
1t should not be the duty of a
magistrate to examine the merits
of a case. He could not help but be
biased by the, accounts furnished
him before the cases came up
Judges are human and would
naturally be pre-infueDced.
Executive and Judiciary officers
of the Government should act in
harmony. The practise is much
fairer and better than robbing the
prosecuting officer of all power
except that of entering a nolle
prosequi.
There are a great many things
in the administration of public
affairs which must be left to the
judgment of the officers having
them ia charge. Bringing ano
disposing of prosecutions belongs
to the department of the Attorney
General. The speaker was SURE
that where the practise had been
subject to abuse once, the plan
outlined, suggested or forced by
the resolution would multiply
abuses. The resolution would
encourage litigation. Discretion
was nece essary on the part of the
prosecution, and authority to ac
with judgment was necessary.
The Attorney General appre
ciated the arguments against cen
tralization. He did not believe
; in giving too much power to the
Executive. Officials were en-
deavoring to subserve the best in
terest of the people. If mistakes
were made, it was in the interest
of the public to bring them out.
The speaker hoped the resolu-
ton would not pass.
Mr.. Robertson said that the
House contended that the laws
should be enforced as the Legis-
lature made them. The practise
under discussion reverses the &C
tual wording of the law. In othel
words the prosecuting Office
usurps the authority of the mag
istrates. The magistrates do no
do their duty. What the House
desires is that the magistrate dc
his duty, and the prosecuting off
Ger confne himself to the dutiel
expressly prescribed for his Office
p An examination of the com,
plainant by the magistrate die
not entail prejudgment. 1t wa
purely exparte evidence ant
would naturally be so taken. Tn
practise offered many inconven
fences.
The practise is not law. Tn
Attorney General and his officer