The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-11-07
Continued from Page -

granting the licenses in question. and e
aid in deciding specifically whether re
spondent would have granted them thu.
in disregard of the practice of his OWE
court and in disregard of what he him
self had claimed was due from one Cir.
cult Judge TO another. had the applicants
come before him on their merits and not
as those seeking merely a quid pro quo
from judge whom they had admitte ed
into partnership in politics on an agree
ment for reciprocity of favors, an agree
ment that need not even be framed into
words to constitute a bargain These in
innate relations between most of the IL
censees and the respondent have already
been outlined in the summary OF evil
dence presented herewith under Charge
Two.
LICENSES WITHOUT EXAMINATION.
In addition to the evidence so present.
ed, your committee presented evidence
to wit. the affidavit of Kekauia Exhibit
S23), and keliikoa exhibit 32l), (members
of the legislature), proving that 1t was
a matter of common knowledge and com
ment among the native members of the
legislature that any of these legislators
| could go over to respondent and get a
4 license to practice law without an ex-
animation. Your committee also intro
duced evidence. to wiz, the affidavit of
keliikoa exhibit 22D. to the effect that
| NAAC AiASl icSlSfdlOT licensed Dy respond
| ent, TO Wit, kaniho and who is speci-
cally referred to by Kaulukou as one
who cannot write his mother tongue
dramatically. sought votes from his fell
low legislators in support of respondents
oailin act, on the ground that such act
would insure him (Kaniho) a license from
respondent.
Keliikoa's evidence on the point is as
follows page 3sD: Representative Ka-
niho came to affiant and said that she
and Prendergast had been over to Judge
Humphreys and had secured the promise
of license for himself from said Judge
haniho then said that there was a bill
now pending before the legislature pro-
viding for the appointment of court bail
ms; that this was Judge Humphreys
bill, and that he QIumphreys) was very
anxious TO have it pass
haniho thereupon asked aflant to
vote for the bill, as 1t would make sure
or his (Haniho's) license. Affiant there
upon agreed to do SO, and did in fact
vote for said measure. and because &c
MS promise to Kaniho so to do Kaniho |
later on received his license" (See Ex- |
hibit 321) |
Respondents answer admits the grant |
ing of the licenses in question, practical /
ly as detailed above, barring his denial, |
refuted by the record, that the licenses
cover more than the right to practice in
District Courts, but as to his motive in
issuing these licenses denies that he did
so with Intent to promote his personal L
ends or secure favor with the Home Rule
legislators. He states his motive to be /
70 enable some OF the more intelligent
members of the Hawaiian race to appear
n the country courts and redress the |
wrongs and vindicate the rights Of their
fellow citizens"
INCORRECT STATEMENTS.
Respondent further in answer to said
'harge. undertakes to paint what he con-
iders to be existing conditions In the
country districts OF this Territory, and
n so doing states, among other things:
First-That a large majority of the Dis
riot Judges in the country districts can
leither read, write. speak nor under
tand the English language, which state
nent, as is generally known to every in
ellfgent citizen, is untrue
Second-That few of the deputy sheriffs
n the country districts speak the Eng
sh language, which also Is wholly un-
rue, the truth being that all of them |
an speak the English language.
Third-That the average Hawaiian 10
tterly ignorant of his right of appeal to
higher court from the decisions of the
district Courts, and IS therefore submis-
we to the judgments often times unjust
arsh. etc, which also is untrue
Fourth-that, with possibly three ex
options, the persons licensed live in
ountry districts. sparsely settled. remote
,om cities, towns or villages" which
lso is untrue.
ffth-That "in every instance where {
le licensees were utterly ignorant of
II knowledge Of the English lanpnapa
lie Individual to whom the license was
ranted lived in a district or precinct N
resided over by a district magistrate "
no Is IN like happy and contented
axe OF ignorance. which Is also I'M
ne. AS Is also respondents entire con-
ntion that there was q dearth or await
lie legal talent in the country districta II
presented by the licensees and that
at was his motive in issuing the H.
nses IN question. T
THE TRUTH.
The truth IS, as is known to everv Off
IN OF the Territory reasonably con- =,
/ SAINT with Territorial affairs that now l.
q at time that the licenses were is
co. a goodly number of such licenses
re already held by native HawattapS
d others residing in every ,3istrict ns
Islands, except on the small and
irseiy settled Islands of Molokai Ia
| ana Niihau, which have no telenhona |
I'm, 'here are very few people in this
= 'IiaI cannot within an hour or | On
. reach by telephone any attorney IL
.seu elther 10 practice in courts of rec
I or for the lower courts only rastdtn
the same island. In short licansoae
4
Doth the lower and higher courts were
-oly available at the time of the fssu-
e OF these licenses, on all parts of the
4hos, TO practically all of the inbabf-
It's of the Territory.
ne physical conditions of the Terri
~ J, therefore, upon which respondent
d!cateS his motives for issuino- .bo "a
ses In question, do not in fact axist
recover. these country districts are in
rye OF other Circuit Judges. appoint
OF the president, who reside wi,btr
presumably know the needs of tbai-
a circuits as wen. certainly as an out
II II Is not apparent that these
e eS were not consulted by respondent
ore issuing the licenses in ouestior,
had any complaint been made from
source that there was a deartb Of
= tdleht within their respective cir
- nor is 1T in evidence that an1
sc licensees had previously applied 70
IT home judges for licenses.
CHARGE IS NOT NET
espondent in his answer to this charge