The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-08-04
THE COOPER CASE
The Acknowledgement Is
Sustained.
Supreme Court Says He Cannot be
Held to Account for Official
Legal Acts.

!
Cooper by A. S. Humphreys, member ,
OF the bar, the Supreme Court yester-
day handed down its decision, the gist
of which may be gathered from the
syllabus, in which the Court says:
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 Il
and were not of such a nature as
would justify proceedings against him
as a member of the bar
The Attorney General cannot be held
to account by the Court for his official
acts done within his legal power.
Justice Frear voicing the unanimous
ing the evidence introduced in which |
considerable latitude was allowed, |
says:
In view of the high official position
of the respondent and the grave nature
of the charges preferred. this case has
assumed considerable prominence and
has been given much attention by
counsel.
| Much has been said in regard to the
conduct of the complainant, especially
in connection with his inspiring of ar
ticles for the newspapers. His coun-
! sci comedies that he was not justified
| in pursuing such a course after having
gone, through counsel, to the court and
after the court had issued an order to
Ill, CT, nnIoortl nI,t
upon his conduct in this or other re-
spects. but turn our attention to the
respondent in the case.
| AS already said, the complaint was
carefully drawn with a view to show
| ing malpractice and unprOfeSSlonal
conduct on the part OF the respondent
as a member of the bar. But so far as
appears, he acted throughout as Attor-
ney General No doubt member of
1.-THE bar may perform acts in some 9th
| er official capacity or even in private
capacity of such disgraceful, immoral
or criminal character as to show him
Ito be unfit to continue longer mem
Der of the profession, and for such con-
duct he may be held to account by the
Court, even to the extent Of dlsbar-
Iment. But it is not cOntended that the
respondent in this case was guilty OF
misconduct involving moral turpltude,
or perhaps, any acts OF character SO
Idisgraceful as, if not done in his pro-
lfessional capacity, would warrant ac-
ItiOn by the Court against him in his
professional capacity. IL counsei 40
intend to go so far as to make Sucn
a contention as that last mentioned,
we must hold that the facts do not
bear them out 1t is indeed not entire
lv clear Just what the theory OF coun-
1oin
made to show the respondent guilty OF
misconduct as a member OF the bar
and yet in spite of all efforts to adj
| here to such a theory, it has bee1
found impossible in both the testimony
! land the arguments to avoid showing
lconduct. whatever it's character, by tht
respondent solely as Attorney Generai
3 There are. as already stated, tWt
charges. The first is that the respond
. ent retained and intended to retall
icontrol of both sides of the case.
y nv this is meant that he retained con
y troll of the defense through Mr.. Weber
as we'll as of the prosecution JhrouSl
Mr.. Humphreys, one answer TO II l
that the undisputed evidence show
that such was not the case. Mr.. Wen
er did not appear for the Attorne
), Generals department. He appeare
for the Finance Department. This wa
distinctly understood and announce
on every proper occasion. The actlo
of the respondent in connection Wit
Mr.. Weber, so far as his control OF III
case was concerned, was preclsei
what it would have been if he had {
the instance of the Minister OF Flnant
requested an outside attorney to al
~ near for the Finance Department. An
what little he did in this cOnnectlo
he did. not as a member of the bar, Dl
as Attorney General.
The second charge is that
abridged the professional rights or II
complainant by not permitting him
raise a question as to Mr.. Weber's a
lpearance Here again the response
acted solely as Attorney General. In
is so manifest as not to require con
ment No doubt it was eXasperatl1
and perhaps humiliating to the cor
plainant to have this restraint p
upon him, but that the respondent
so doing acted solely as Attorney &c
eral and moreover within his leg
\ mowers there can be no question.
In expressing these views we do n
intend to express approval of the \
torney Generals conduct. Neither
we intend to express dlsapproVal. '
.. do not feel called upon to enter up
a discussion of all the side issues a.
minor points commented upon IN
eument or to attempt discourse up
morality or professional ethics, su
as some of the arguments seem to /
"a ivite. All we can say in this case
, that the acts of the respondent we
the acts of the Attorney General: tn
they are not of such nature as, VIII
done aside from his capacity as an {
torney-at-law. would justify acti
against him in his professional capf
ity: that the Attorney General is
member of a coordinate department
the Government and that this Co,
has no jurisdiction in a proceeding
this kind to pass upon his acts as I
torney General. Of course, the Coz
has control over its own prOceedir
- and may control the action of the