The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1899-07-01
KINNEY SCORES COOPER



dent Is forever bound and charged un-
der his official oath To maintain and
assist
The whole proposition Is indefensible
aud grows more and more SO, the FUR
Their IL Is prObed
in this particular case we are told
that the servant is above his master,
and that Weber was detached that day
and appeared for the Finance Depart
mcnt such are the regulation pleas in
cases Of this kind. We should like the
respondent to define the legal status of
the Finance Department in criminal
cases. and what is meant by the Finan-
! ce Department and also to state the
process by which Weber was detached
! for that day, and in what the detach
ment consisted of. He certainly was
paid for that days work out of the at
| torney generals fund. He certainly
was subject to the control, direction
| and dismissal at pleasure of the attor-
ney- general that day. The respondent
admits i'm evidence that he could have
| recalled Weber from the defense at any
time In other words, If the attorney
general did tell Weber to defend the
! case to suit himself, it was a license he
could have recalled at any time, as he
threatened to do with Humphreys on
the other side Amidst this trio, to wit:
. Cooper Weber and the Portuguese de-
! PENDANT, which was client and attorney,
and which was employer and emploYe?
| Did Weber have as a client the Portu-
guese defendant the Finance Depart
ment or Cooper? Did the Portuguese
! have Cooper or Weber as his attorney
or neither? Which one of the two, to-
| wit the Portuguese or Cooper i'm con-
| hict of interest or disagreement, would
or should Weber have served? If the
! Portuguese, what does Cooper mean by
saying that he could have recalled
Weber at any time, and thus left the
! Portuguese client adrift?
We most certainly contend that the
court is not called upon to disentangle
any such mess. Let every attorney
choose whom he will serve, and then
serve him and no one else. The re-
spondent had no right to create such a
state of affairs, or put himself in such
a position. He is guilty of misconduct
then and there, without having to con-
slider, whether. as matter of fact, MS
motive were good, bad or Indifferent, and
! the fact that the respondent was attor-
| general at the time makes 1t the
worse for him. A private attor-
control either the prosecution or de-
fense but the encouragement can
never concern himself in the defense
under any circumstances.
| Certainly the suppression by threat
of the point to be raised against Weber,
was from no worthy motive. Why did
respondent do it? There was, of course
a motive, as there is to all action, what
was it? If there was nothing in the
point respondent could afford to let
! the court so decide. If there was, he
had no right to suppress it. What in
terest of the public was served in the
suppression of that issue? Was it not
for the protection of public interests
and the preservation of the integrity of
prosecutions, that the point should have
| been raised
What is the list or character of Of
lenses and charges against the en-
ployes of the Finance Department.
which will result in the intervention of
the Department of the Attorney-Gen
eral? And what departments are to in
dulge in this privilege? If it includes
assault and battery, would it include a
charge of embezzlement, also, where
| the head of the department was salts
| fled that his employe was innocent, and
| that the interests of the department re-
quired that he should be defended by
| the public appearance of an employee of
| the Attorney Generals Department in
his defense.
Is the respondent entirely candid in
contending that the appearance of his
clerk for the defense, is not calculated
to encourage the defense and weaken
and discourage the prosecution.
| The times are near at hand when we
must rely more and more upon fixed
and well-defined safeguards against
even the temptation or appearance OF
evil, if we are to preserve the purity of
the administration of justice, in this
country. The day may not be far dis
tant when we will have prosecuting at
torneys absolutely Independent of all
local control, and subject only to re-
moval by appeal to a distant executive,
crowded to death with issues of ma
tional importance. And if these officers
are to be elected, they will be beyond
control even of the central govern
ment, and can only be removed by
cumbersome and unwieldly proceedings
in court.
The encouragement had no right to
do what he did. 1t was absolutely I'M
necessary and uncalled for, and was
simply the result of an enlarged idea of
the Importance of his position and his
power coupled with a senseless disre-
gard of the manifest improperly OF
his conduct.
Much has been made of complainants'
hostility and animus against defend
ant. That there is such animus is set
tied, but where did it come from, and
how did it arise? 1t is not contended
that he had any pre-eXistng animus.
1t all grew out of the respondent
treatment of complainant, and it would
have angered and Inundated any mem
Der of the bar to have been confronted
in open court with the alternative pre-
scribed by respondent after he had ap-
peared in court for the prosecution and
prepared his case. In this connection
must be borne i'm mind the tremendous
powers of an attorneys general and the
helpless position of an attorney prac-
ticing for his bread and butter out i'm
the open, when coming up against that
power. The attorney-general has abso-
lutte discretion to allow or refuse the
appearance of private counsel i'm Grim
inal prosecutions. If he can with i'm
punity impose the unworthy condition
imposed upon Humphreys, there Is
nothing to prevent him imposing in the
future, other conditions. Certainly new
er in the history of the country thus
far, has any attorney general attempt
ed anything of the kind. In the days
when there was least control over the
monarchy private prosecutions of its
own officials We're freely allowed by the
Government against it's own interests
Nothing of this kind was ever attempt
ed so far as the undersigned can re-