Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1901-09-27

Exhibit 3. AYERS, in substance that
these native Hawaiians VINO had been
admitted to practice were ignorant ot
the English language, and otherwise
united tor admission to the Bar. II
is further suggested tnat some OF them
resided permanently OUTSIDE Of the
circuit. II Is further sought To ne
shown that the admission OF these la.
waiian legislators to practice by Judge
Humphreys was an inconsistency on
his part, as by the rules OF the Court
all procee, lings must be conducted in
the English language. and Judge Hum.
phreys mad expressed mis- opinion that
no one should be admlucd to practice
in the Circuit Court who resided per-
mancntly outside OF its jurisdiction.
The matter oi these admissions To
the Bar is purely question for the
discretion of the Judge. Administer.
ing law in a court where the English
language is spoken. but in which many
Oi the litigants only speak the native
tongue, presents, necessarily. great
difficulties. Moreover. the conditions
which prevail in Hawaii necessarily
require local courts Throughout, the
Islands. There are doubtless many
small communities at inaccessible
places which must have some methods
of obtaining legal advice in the Ha'
waiian tongue and OF adjusting their
differences. Judge Humphreys believ'
ed that to secure this end 1t was nee
ossary to admit Hawaiians to member
ship in the Bar. ana in his Judgement
the members of the Legislature. VINO
enjoyed position OF trust and rcspon'
sibility, and who mad direct official "a.
lations with the native population. and
presumably enjoyed their confidence.
were obviously proper recipients 81
this special favor. have no reason
to question the conclusions which
Judge Humphreys reached, and in any
event would regard IL as a matter en-
tirely within his discretion.
The third charge is furIher sought
to be established by Exhibits $3.50 and
33l, which show. In substance, that
the editor of the Honolulu Republican
was indicted on February 10, 1891, 'oI
an assault with weapon dangerous
30 life. On February 10 Il plea n
abatement was argued before judge
Humphreys. II appears from the all
davit ol LOrrin Andrews lEXhibIL $3.50
'ha' Juuse humphreys VINO was 'h"l
pT'slulhg AT the term OF court tN
pressed ms ulsih'Hhatioh 10 near an!
portloh Oh the case ana that the coun
SCI ior the prosecutor thereupon stat
ed that the matters involved in tn.
piea Oh apatehleht were merely maj
tiers Of law; that they did not affec
the facts in the case, and that 1t wa
very Important an carry decision
shouiu De rendered IN TINS case, an
requested tnat the Judge Tor ines
reasohs shouid near the mat'er
once. Inc Judge thereupoh sta'"'
mat ne "ouid 40 80, ana on or aDou
the 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY, lyi, argr
meht was had IN the matter. NJ IN
conclusion Oh "hich the court state
that ne would reserve decision an
would decide the case as carry as pos
sipie. appears that ABOUT Marc
~ isoi, the prosecutor upon whoi
the assahit was al'egen 10 nave nee
committed Disappeared from fa"al
anu from these iacts the complainant
against Judge humphreys gravel
aver 'hat me decision Of Judge Hun
phreEs on the pea III Abatement wa
uhuuiy anu improperly delayed
WIN view 'hereD! Oh impfoperi
anu uhduly ia'orihg saiu leiehuai
ana weakening 'he case oi the pros
Su.lon, IL - eNraol,''hary that meu
o'rs w 'ne bar 'oulu prefer 50 gray
marie upon 50 ihsuhiclent Sro"iius
SUN 'nalse seeihs 10 petraS d recl
nleys, anu rene''s niue cren'l upo
Ihose VINO nave given thelr endors
iheht 70 IT. me cohplaihahts oW
plool SHOWS .ha', aithoush u" reg
SIounus eNisteu 10 ulsquallly Jude
'iunPh'ss' run 'ohSiueiihs anu u
.lains 'he case, yet because tue d