The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-07-06
Az ATTORNEY GENERAL
WITHOUT SHAME.


The more the action OF Attorney
General Dole Ia entering a noIle prose
qui Ia the smith case Is considered BY
the people the more venai and corrupt
does it appear 70 them Men who
have been inclined 70 give the Attor-
ney General credit for honesty Of pur-
pose. but duliness Of wit. are now fore
I'd 10 believe that coupled with the
dizziness Of Wit Is a contempt for hon
esty and a too willing readiness to
prostitute his once for the personal
benefit o. some favorite.
The Bar Association rushed TO con
denim Judge Humphreys several weeks
ago. because he sentenced three men
% jail for an open and notorious con-
tempt o. court and the public naturally
wishes TO know what the Bar Associa-
ton proposes 10 do now in the case OF
an Attorney General who prostitutes
his Office and disgraces his profession
by acting as the attorney for a Grim
inal defendant whom he had sworn to
prosecute VIII the Bar Association
be consistent by demanding his re-
moval as Attorney General or will the
association stultify itself by condon-
ing the prostitution OF his office and
the disgraeing OF his profession.
In moving 10 nolle pros. the
Smith case the Attorney General
said he could not. proceed with
the prosecution because of bias.
Then he should have said he was
unfit TO al the Office OF Attorney
General he was not too biased when
the indictment was found to destroy
the indictment drawn up by his deputy
and prepare one himself He was not
too biased 10 advise the grand jury
10 return an Indictment He was not
too biased when the indictment was
returned not to believe that the evil
dence was sufficient TO convict. He
was not too biased as late as last
Monday 20 engage the late Paul Neu-
mann 10 prosecute the case. Then
why this sudden change OF sentiment?
What Interior motive interviewed be
tween last Monday. when Paul Neu-
mann was engaged to prosecute the
case and Wednesday when the Attor-
ney General entered a nolle prosg
Why should Mr.. Dole in his sworn
duty as prosecutor have stated all the
assertions for failure to proceed 10
trial that the attorneys for the de-
fence might have presented? Why
not have left 1t for Mr.. Smiths attor-
neys to say that matters coming up
subsequent 10 the finding Of the indict-
ment precluded the possibility of
conviction and that il would be only
wise Tor the Territory 60 enter = nolle
proseQui But no, Mr.. Dole In his
double capacity as Attorney General
and as counsel for the defendant did
all this himself In other states men
have more than once been disharred
for accepting retainer from both
sides But here Attorney General
Dole appeared as the prosecutor on be-
half Of the Territory and at the same
time acted as attorney for the defend
ant and made the statement on his be-
hair presenting alleged reasons why
defendant should not be prosecuted
II the Attorney General were honest
he would not have allowed either
friendship or enmlty or bias to inter- |
fcre with his sworn duty as public |
prosecutor He would know neither |
friend nor enemy in the performance
81 his plain duty. and failing in this il |
is selfevident TO the people that
something else than ~bias@ caused his
most remarkable action OF last We'd |
nesiay.