The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-11-07
The Report of Lawyers Committee
Against the Politician
Is Adopted.
of the Findings Brings Out Some
Directors But the Vote Discovers Only
Four Opponents to Action.

dence OF J. i. Kaulukou, also undenied
| by respondent, that many of SAID appli-
cants had mo knowledge whatever OF
| law" and several of them were 30 Hit
crate that they could not write IAN in
| telIgent, grammatical letter, even In
their own tongue" (See Exhibit s27.)
Your committee charged respondent
| with issuing these licenses 10 secure per-
Sonal favor with the dominant party In
the Legislature and to promote his per-
sonal ends, and on this question OF mo-
tive introduced two lines of evidence, to
wit:
~ Evidence showing that respondent
In issuing the licenses In question has
had to disregard and did disregard the
rules of his own court and his avowed
policy as to granting licenses to prac-
tice law.
(2) That respondent was doing politics
with most OF these licensees at the time
of the applications to such an extent
that he was not in a position to with
| hold such a favor from hem, even IL he
had desired
EVIDENCE OF J. A. THOMPSON.
On the first OF the above points, your
committee proved by the evidence OF
Thompson, clerk of respondents court
(see Exhibit 320, the adoption by said
respondent, shortly after the passage Of
the Organic Act by Congress, providing
for form of government for the Terri
tory of Hawaii, of a rule requiring all
proceedings in court to be conducted in
the English language, this following the
provisions of said Congressional Act
making English the official language OF
the Territory. Said Thompson further
testified that under the rule in question
no attorney OF Hawaiian extraction was
permitted to address the court or conduct
a case IN the Hawaiian language through
N iufernrpfPr In "a "a Of
Hawaiian witness being interrogated d.
rectly by counsel In Hawaiian, answers
being Interpreted into English by an in
terpreter.
EVIDENCE OF J. L. KAULUKOU.
]. l. Kaulukeu also gave evidence eek
hibit a2T on this point, as follows: ~.
L. Kaulukou, being first duly sworn, on
oath deposes ana says: That he is an
attorney at law Of Hawaiian extraction.
having practiced law In the courts OF the
Hawaiian Islands and IL che. Territory
of Hawaii since the year 1871 affiant
having been admitted 10 practice law
from that year; that atlantis knowledge
Of English Is so imperfect that he las
invariably pracutced law in the courts
aforesaid in the Hawaiian language
through an interpreter, affiant speaking
IN tne Hawaiian lang "ni Is his
mother tongue: but Sf-er the passage OF
the Organic Act making En- III IN th' ofii-
ctal language, respondent refused to per
NIT affiaBt or any other Hawaiian at.or-
ney, to address the court or witnesses,
or otherwise take part in any proceed
ings in court, in the Hawaiian language;
tiht thsreupOn sii;ant was compelled to
give up his profession or speak In Eng
lish az best he could, and therefore af7-
ant has since said date conducted his
cases in English, getting along as bes.
he could. Affiant knows of some Ha-
ffsr1
inability to speak English at all, have
been compelled to abandon the practico
Of law altogether
Your committee further proved by the
evidence OF said Kaulukeu that II has
not been the practice In this Territory for
Circuit Judge to license persons TO prac-
lice law who reside permanently within
the Circuit of another judge, and ex-
Judge Stanley (see Exhibit 32SJ testihes
hat respondent, in conversation with
1lm prior to the granting OF the license
n question, denounced any such act, to
wit, the granting of licenses outside of
one's own Circuit, as highly improper
On the part of any Judge"
The foregoing evidence of Judge Stan
ey is undenied by respondent, unless he
intends to raise such an issue of yeracity
between himself and Judge Stanley,
which certainly seems doubtful, by the
statement contained in his an
s"eT tsee page ls): In granting licenses
10 persons who did not reside In the Cir
,uit in which 1 presided, was not aware
that was violating the established COM
ty and practice existing between tho
Judges Of the several Circuits, nor was
| in fact doing so, as no such comfy or
practice has ever been established"
VIOLATED HIS OWN RULES.
Your committee therefore presented re-
liable and disputed evidence that the
.censed the persons in ques-
-!on TO practice before him and before ali
1ther Circuit Judges at chambers on ap-
peal throughout the Territory. in utter
disregard Of the rules of his own court
and daily enforced by him. requiring the
exclusive of the English language:
ind further. that said licenses were
granted under circumstances already
by respondent, when ne
hought another Circuit Judge had done
he very same thing by him, highly
improper on the part OF any Judge"
Your committee felt that the foregoing
violence was extremely important upon