The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-30


ler Hatch that l could not vote for all
| the matters which are in that first reso-
luton.
l have not come into contact with
that Court as much as many of the mem
| bers have. I have not been present In
court in many of these instances which
| have been said to be an abuse of pow
Ter. We have read of them in the news
papers, but we cannot say that those
| charges are true or false when we are
Ignorant of the circumstances or the ev.
idence which may be used to prove them
and so 1 say if it could be modified to ap-
point court of inquiry, and the charges
| framed; and if evidence is adduced be-
| fore it, L would be prepared to vote for
! that. 1 am also prepared to vote for the
resolution of my brother Hatch.
! If this Bar Association can express it
self in regard to such action or disap-
prevail of the action of the Circuit Judge
/ in recent matters, but when it comes to
the resolution I will repeat that l think
| a court of inquiry or committee should
be first appointed and the charges DC
then presented to the association, il
they have any to make.
/ KINNEY SUPPORTS THE RESoIU-
! TION.
| Mr. w A. Kinney. This is a ease
where we are not so VIDE apart as may
! appear at first blush. Mr.. Stewart has
himself criticized Judge Humphreys; Mr..
| Hatch certainly has, and so has my
| friend Mr.. Whiting. 1t is for ali very
important matter and one in which we
should not make any mistake l am III
| favor of the resolution, and for this rea-
son / may be open TO criticism for speak
| ing; but / claim it is not the result of
personal anmus against Humphreys. i
might have got madden if he had sue
ceeded in putting me behind the bars,
but | have come out of it philosophical
| ly, and 1 contend for the resolution as
presented, contending at the same time
that my convictions in that respect are
the result of careful inquiry into the
matter and careful study of the stua-
ton along the lines of the resolution pre-
scented by my brother Robertson.
Mr. Hatch contends that man should
not be condemned before he is heard
that is the sense of Mr.. Hatchs conten-
ton, and he has certainly put that for3-
IDLY before the association, as an in
stance of one thing that holds him back,
and then he proceeds to condemn Judge
Humphreys, certainly without hearing,
if | read his resolution Alright. 1t says
that Judge Humphreys attitude to-
wards the attorneys of his court is an in
fringement of the right of every lawyer
to practice law fearlesSly and indepe nd
emily in the interests of his client.
If, in passing that resolution. we would
not condemn Judge Humphreys in the
very essence of his profession, in the
very essence of his judicial position
that of impartiality, and the administra
ton of his powers without fear or fa-
vor-then certainly the English language
has been misunderstood
DIFFERENCE bETWEEN THE RES
OLUTIONS.
| What is the difference between Hatch
in his resolution and Robertson in his:
1t is simply a question of degree. Ii
Hatch in his resolution is willing to con-
denim Humphreys here and without wait
ing for hearing, without formulating
charges and without the assistance of a
committee, it certainly brings Hum
phreys into condemnation of the worst
kind 1t would humiliate him; it would
dispose of the matter, and, worse than
that, it is half the truth. AS far as
am concerned, if we are going to do the
! thing at all, let make a stand upon
| the facts; let us be fortified by the facts
and not occupy a position which is con-
domination without a hearing and nall
apologize as well.
| THAT PARTISAN NEWSPAPER.
| For instance, is it matter in dispute
! that Judge Humphreys is publishing and
controlling newspaper, a partisan news
paper?
| My learned friend says it is a fight be-
tween one newspaper and another; but
| just forgot to add what l will add, TINT
one of those newspapers happens to be
owned and controlled by Judge of the
Circuit Court. There is the whole point
nf phare SOrpathiOor havOnd dis
pute; everybody knows it. Right there
is something that should be challenged
by the Bar Association and should have
been challenged long ago, and We should
Be recreant to our duty if We adjourn
without condemning the practice and
conduct of any Judge who so far forgets
his duty and his Office as to continue 20
be the political leader and head of a po-
iitical faction A Judge should have
nothing to do with politics; there he ell
tiers into controversies with other news
papers; it becomes a bitter political
fight to the death, and 1t naturally af-
fects that Judge, almost unconsciousIy
in the heat of the fray, when things are
going against him, and causes him to lay
his hand upon his judicial power ard
use it to further the same interests that
he is furthering in his newspaper. L
think that any Bar Association in any
part of the country would take stand
against a Judge publishing and control
ling a political newspaper at the Same
time that he retains his position on tie
Bench. The two things do not go to-
gether.
Why is it that Judges in the past have
been criticised for holding stock in out
side corporations? Because, granting
that this does not influence the Judge.
yet the Bar have always been jealous
that men who occupy judicial positions
be above suspicion, and whether or not
Judge Humphreys can divorce himself
from what he edits on the newspaper,
when he comes on to the Bench, men
will not believe it, because under the cir
cumstances the presumptions are that
some of these influences will follow him
on to the Bench.
The learned profession of the law at
all times and in all changes have acted
Overwhelmingly on the side of freedom
against oppression 1 do not mean that
they have gone out to attack everything
they think wrong, but in anything that
has come within the province of their
profession they have been leaders on the
right side.
The public is as interested in this
question as we are ourselves.
APPOINTMENT or IEwrS