The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-09-28
TRYING TO INVOLVE
GOVERNOR DOLE IN HIS TROUBLES


Confessedly, the respondent has the
controlling interest and the power to di-
rect the policy editoriaIIy and otherwise
of the newspaper which has the honor
TO acknowledge his ownership. Confess
eddy also, he who owns the newspaper
has his ideas, which may be perfectly
right, and may be in the line of best
government and Overlooking with wis
dom, and has approved of the course of
its editor in chief in bitter attacks upon
the administration of the Territory of
Hawaii of the habits and customs in
court and out, of such of the inhabitants
as have not met the expectations, real
and idealisuC of his Honor, and to say
in argument that he has not actually ed
tied those, is, under all the circum-
stances, what might be termed specous.
Let us assume frankly that the fact
that bitter enmity and animosity exists
between what are called political factions
In Hawaii is regrettable. 1t may be more
regrettable that one upon the bench,
whose utterances are protected by the
invioability that attaches to his judicial
person, must needs become a prominent
factor in this controversy. Can it be, as
human nature is constituted, that one
taking the intense interest in political
and social conditions, as is assumed by
the respondent, can dispassionately and
fairly hear and determine matters in
which people appear before him, who
are unhappily visited with his contempt,
or whose ideas of government and of
morals run counter to his own exalted
estimate? The presentation of a contro-
. versy such as is here brought, cuts along
lines of delicacy so close that the coun-
sci or advocate must abandon the cause
, contided to his Care,or present some mat
tiers so framed that they may unfortu-
nately offend. The respondent furnished
the precedent during the excellent pre-
conceived argument made in his defense,
that the bare words and record would
not always show all of the conditions
that went to make up special occur
rences; and if the Bar Association is un-
able to present pen portraits of the atti-
, tude and demeanor upon the bench of
one whom they have deliberately, and
under the sOlemnity of an oath, charged
with intolerance and abusive manner,
they may be pardoned for asking the
Honorable Attorney General to recall
the attitude of that Judge, and the i'm
pressions made, when appearing before
him.
| 1t has been argued that because many
OF the members of the Bar Association
whose names are subscribed to the aff-
davit that is before you, are related to
each other, and have been subjected to
punishment for alleged contempt, or
otherwise came into unhappy conflict
with the Court, that there is such bias
and Interior motive evident as to de-
stroy the effect of their accusations. The
writer would assume that men would
not complain unless they have griev-
ances, and that if the members of the
Bar Association had no feeling in the
matter, and had not come under the ban
of the heavy hand of the Court, they
would not have deemed it nee ssary to
take the action that has been taken. The
writer also respectfully apprehends that
such action would not have been taken
unless the conditions We're fragrant and
beyond any redress in their power to
seek or obtain. Litigants in court are
represented by counsel and all of their
interests, everything that they have at
stake is confided to the Court in charge
of such counsel. Lawyers worthy of the
name do not require favors from any
court but it would seem to go without
saying that if members of the Bar are
visited with the personal enmity of
presiding judge before whom they must
appear in defense of their client, the adj
ministration of justice naturally and cas-
lily will partake of the infrmities of man,
and be to a greater or less degree infiu-
enced by such unfortunate relationship.
| The writer begs leave to suggest that
it is unnecessary to specify particular
charges that are relied upon, and to go
into details covering the exhibits pre-
scented in support thereof. 1t is assum-
ed that Notwithstanding the onerous
duties imposed upon the Attorney Gen
eral, the excessive demands put upon his
time, he will not fail to even search for
all that will throw light upon this unfor-
tunate controversy.
The specific cases of contempt were
not, I believe, submitted to show that
each or any of them was or would be,
by itself particularly monstrous, but
taking all together and aided somewhat
by the plea that the respondent has filed
as indicating the position that he seems
to occupy in the way of regulating the
community, to establishing presidents
agreeably to his own ideas, or to show
that self-respecting lawyers must be at
a decided disadvantage in being COMPEL
ed to bow to eccentricities and to con-
form themselves in every respect, under
the pains and penalties of contempt, to
the extemporaneous rules that may be
from time to time indicated by the court.
Scarcely any system known to mankind
has been or is free from defects. 1t may
be true that justice was administered in
Hawaii prior to the elevation to the
bench of respondent, in such a loose way
as to call for certain reforms. Reform
ers in the history of the world have done
much good. Some people have said that
Luther was a bigot. However that may
be- the lawyer who conscientiously wants
to bring about the just determination of
his clients rights. naturally prefers to
go before a court and not a lecture bu-
Teau.
In the contempt proceedings against
Kinney, Ballou and Hartwen, upon
which much stress was laid by the re-
spondent in argument. it appears from
the answer of the respondent himself,
upon page &c. that Mr.. Kinney asked the
Court whether it intended to try that
case. 1t also appears from the matters
that are before the Attorney General,
that the defendant there present and the
Judge were bitter political, If not per-
sonaI. enemies. If attorneys, in the con-
sideration of the rights of their clients,
found that it was necessary to show
a condition of mind on the part of the
Judge as would properly inhibit his sit
ting as a trial Judge, and they, as they
did in this case, frankly state to the
Court that they did not wish to file any
such affidavit if the Court would init
mate that it would not try the case,
it would plainly appear that they were