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

the impression that he came to know
Lewis only through the casual COM
mendation OF Judge Hebbard OF San
Francisco and that up to the time OF
his appointment Of Lewis that was
all he knew of him.
In this connection respondent says:
About sixty days prior TO said ap-
pOintment, Judge Hebbard. of the Su-
perior Court of the city Of San Fran
cisco. was visiting Honolulu. Upon an
occasion when Judge Hebbard, some
other gentlemen and myself were en-
gagged in conversation, Lewis came up
and spoke to the Judge. Judge Heb
bard was extremely cordial in greeting
Lewis. and when Lewis left the judge
remarked to me: That boy used to be
one Of the clerks of the Superior Court
in San Francisco, and he is all right
"a few days prior to the converting
Of the May. 1901. term of the court
over which preside, Lewis came to
me and asked If / could not give him
some employment about the court At
these terms Of court, owing to the
large number of grand and trial jurors,
witnesses and litigants in attendance,
an additional bailin is required. and
under the law am authorized to ap-
point, for and during such term, an
additional baiIiff at a compensation OF
SO per diem. Remembering Judge Heb
bard's commendation Of Lewis, and
having no knowledge of anything dis
creditable to him. gave him this tenn
porary appointment"
WAS LEWIS ATTORNEY.
The affidavit of A NJ Brown that
respondent had acted as counsel for
Lewis in the police court before oc-
cupying the bench and was, therefore,
personally conversant with his char
acter and record is passed over by re-
spondent without denial OF comment
whatsoever.
He concludes:
Lewis is a bright, energetic. indus
triouS, sober man. / had not
when 1 appointed him, nor have now,
any reason to doubt his honesty and
fitness in every respect for the posi-
ton to which 1 appointed him, and
frankness compels me to say that
would not now hesitate to appoint him
TO similar position"
The proofs of the drawing OF a par
tisan grand jury were, that although
the majority of those eligible to serve
on grand jurieS are annexationists and
Republicans (undenied by respondent),
nineteen of the twenty-four jurors Sc
lected were personally and bitterly
hostile to the local Republican admin
istration which had carried annexation
to a successful issue, and that seven
teen Of them had been personal oppo-
nents OF annexation.
Also, the undisputed fact that they
were selected in special term for the
express purpose of investigating the
truth Of charges of corruption, made
of the Home Rule Legislature, charg- |
ing them with bribery and corruption: !
the Home Rule party consisting almost |
exclusively of ex-Royalists, who open /
ly opposed annexation and President !
Dole under the Republic and still are, |
in conjunction with respondent, oppoS-
ing Governor Dole under the Territory. |
1t must of course be borne in mind |
that under respondents new bailiff act, |
no jurors are drawn or chosen by lot; |
but both grand and petit jurors are [
merely the personal choice and selec-
ton OF the baiIiff under an order from !
the Judge directed to the bailiff re-
questing him to select so many men
for service as jurors, the bailif be-
ing the appointee OF the judge, and |
removable at his pleasure.
A PUERILE DENIAL
Practically the only defense made by
respondent to this charge is, that he
did not know that the members OF
the jury were political opponents OF the
Dole administration.
In this community where nearly ey- ].
cry one of any prominence is known
to every one else, such n denial Is
puerile and insincere; moreover, the
partisan character of the jury was
pointed out in the public press at the
time with a specific classification of
the jury on the above lines, undenied
but disregarded.
The issue, therefore, presented under
the foregoing charge, was whether re-
spondent's bailiff unconsciously and
without design happened to select nine
teen bitter personal opponents of the
party whose utterances were to be in
veStigated, out OF a possible twenty
four, or not, the selection having to be
made from a body of men, the ma
jOrity Of whom were not personally
hostile.
necessary to show any direct partci-
patton by respondent in the selection
of this jury. The action of the baiIiff
was the action OF his principal under
the existing circumstances, particular
Iy when not disavowed and not rem
edied by the judge having absolute
control over the bailiff in question.
THE IWILEI QUESTION.
Another instance in which the re-
spondent has wiIfully gone out of his
way to malign the members Of this
association is his statement that his
prostitution known as the "Iwilei {
question: was one of the causes of ,
the action taken by this association.
& large portion of his reply to the .
charges is taken up with discussion ,
of the details of this subject, which !
is as foreign to the action of the Bar
Association as is the tariff or silver :
Issue.
No reference is made to the subject
in the charges OF specifications. The :
himself points out in his re- )
ply that although over 800 extracts are :
made from his paper, no reference to | !
Iwilei is made, although that paper is .
filled with the subject. ,
The association has not, and does not ,
propose to take part in any discussion
of how the social evil is to be regu- ,
lated either in Honolulu or Washing | :
ton. It repudiates utterly as wilfully, {
and designedly untruthfuI and insult :
ing. the charge made by respondent :
that IL mad concealed motives in max
ing charges against him. because OF :
this or any other subject.
SUMMARY AND CON '
CLUDING REMARKS. :
Your committee in preparing its case 4
aimed to present strictly legal proofs, @
stripped Of all side issues, particularly ! t