The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1899-08-03
COOPERDISBARMENTG CASE
SUPREME COURT sUsTAINs THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Weber Appeared for Finance and Not
Cooper's Observation-Disclosures in
His Onicial Capacity.

The supreme court today handed
down decision in the matter of the pc
tition for the disbarment of Attorney
General Cooper, vindicatng the re-
spondent of the charge of malpractice
and unprofessional conduct in repre-
senting both sides in a criminal pros
ecution.
The opinion is by Justice Frear and
is concurred in by Justices Judd and
Whiting. The meat of the decision is
as follows:
Charges AGAINST the respondent as a
member OF the bar held not sustained
by the evidence.
The acts proved to have been done
by the respondent were done by him in
his capacity as attorney general and
were not of such nature as would JUS
tify proceedings against him as a MEM
ber of the bar
The attorney general cannot be held
to account by the court for his official
acts done within his legal power
The decision is a long one, dealing
with all phases of the case. The court
declined to comment upon complain
ants course in inspiring articles for the
newspapers 1t Is pointed out that there
are two charges, the first of which is
that respondent retained control of both
sides of the case. 1t is ruled that Mr..
Weber did not appear for the attorney
general, but for the Finance Depart
ment, and that the double appearance
was impossible.
The second charge is that respondent
abridged the professional rights of CON-
plainant by not permitting him to raise
a question as to Mr.. Weber's appear
ance. Here again, it is ruled, the re-
spondent acted solely as attorney gen.
eral. That it was eXasperating to com
plainant is admitted, but it is declared
that the attorney acted within his legal
powers.
While expressing these views the
court declines to approve the course OF
the attorney general, nor will it disap-
prove it. "All we can say" continues
the decision, "in this case is that the
| acts of the respondent were the acts OF
| the attorney general, and that they are
not of such nature as, when done
| aside from his capacity as an attorney
at law, would justify action against
him in his professional capacity; that
| the attorney general is a member of 6
| coordinate department of the Govern
| ment and that this court has no juris.
| diction In proceeding of this kind t
| pass upon his acts as attorney general
Of course the court has control over its
| own proceedings and may control the
action of the attorney general to +
greater or less extent in proceedings IN
which he is engaged before it, but i
cannot in proceeding of this charactel
am. entirelytApart from the matter il
connection with which he has acted
hold him to account for acts performed
in his official capacity.
IF the attorney general in this case
committed an error of judgment or act
| ed unwisely either in permitting ar
employe in his department to appear fol
the defense in a criminal case or In af
forwards imposing a restraint upon thu
private counsel engaged to conduct tn,
prosecution, he may be held to accoun
before the bar of public opinion and i
he has shown incapacity for the due
performance of his official duties o.
maladministration in office, he may b,
brought before the court of impeach
ment. But for this court to pass upoi
the moral quality of his official acts II
a proceeding of this kind would be Off
cious and improper