The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-16
THEY Will.
NOT TESTIFY.
Bribery Witnesses
Improperly
Quizzed.
WOULD DEFEAT
ENDS OF JUSTICE
Lawyers Cannot be Compelled to
Betray Clients Interests
Humphreys Ruling.

of bribery against the Legislature,
when the grand jury, which is engaged
in investigating the same, returned TO
structions.
The court was hearing the case of
Prendergast VS.. Peter Martin, and At
torney Ballou was in the middle of
vehement speech, when j. o. Carter,
the foreman of the grand jury. enter
ed the court room and, approaching
the bench, held a whispered consulta-
ton with Judge Humphreys, and then
withdrew as mysteriously as he had
entered
| The trial of the case before the court
proceeded for few minutes, when the
Judge interrupted Mr. Baliou, explain
| ing that the grand jury was without,
desiring to enter that it might receive
further instructions as to its duties,
The court asked the attorneys if they
weres willing that the hearing of the
case might be suspended for a sufficient
length of time for the court to attend
| to the matter, and the attorneys sig
/
! jury was instructed to appear before
the court, which it Immediately did.
! j. o. Carter addressed the court He
said that certain persons had been sub
ipoenaed as witnesses in the matter of
investigating the charges of bribery
against the Legislature. and that such
persons had been sworn and refused to
testfy4 The grand jury wished to
L., tic 1,afr- In he. ;CaC
therefore returned to the court for par
ticula r instructions.
Judge, Humphreys asked the usual
formal questions as 10 whether the
persons so subpoenaed and sworn had
refused. to testify because their testi-
monya would incriminate themselves,
or their clients, or whether the knowl-
edge they possessed had come to them
through the confidential relation of at
Itorneyaand client, and could not there
fore be honorably divulged, etc.
To all of these questions Mr. Carter
answered in the negative.
The judge. proceeded to state the
| law in regard to the duty of every per-
son, Of no matter how high or how low
estate,,sto give such testimony as was
| in mis- power for the defense or incrim-
nation fof persons charged with crime.
naming the only exceptions wherein
the Withholding of testimony is excus-
able; among such exceptions were the
cases where the knowledged possessed
If given. would incriminate the wit
ness: where the witness stands in the
relation rof attorney to client, and the
Testimony given would incriminate the
client: land where the knowledge pos
sessed came to the knowledge of the
witness, through his relations with his
client. and therefore We're held as con-
fidentials
These conceptions. however. the court
said We're not to be taken advantage
of as excuses for the withholding of
testimony, and in case the knowledge
possessed, came to the witness through
some outside source. and not through
his relation with the client. the wit
ness could not riehtfully withhold such
Testimony. He asked Mr.. Carter if such
excuse had been given by the persons
who had refused to testify. Mr.. Car
ter said it had not
The court then asked who the per-
sons were.
Mr.. Carter replied that Attorney
General Dole. Secretary of the Treas
ury Cooper and L. A. Thurston had all
appeared before the grand jury: that L.
A. Thurston and Secretary Cooper had
both been sworn and both refused to
give their testimony; and that Attor-
ney-General Dole had not been sworn.
because he had said that if he We're
sworn he would not testify.
1t then developed. somewhat to the
contradiction Of Mr. Carriers former
negatives. that Attorney Dole
and Secretary Cooper had said that
their reason for not testifying was that
they held official positions, that they
had already been engaged upon the in
vestigation of the bribery matter, and
that II they divulged the knowledge
they possessed at the present time.
their plans for fastening the charge up
on the guilty parties would be frustrat-
ed: also that Mr. Thurston had said
that such knowledge as he possessed
had come to him through the conf
Dental relation of attorney and client /
The court, upon hearing this, resum- /
ed his dissertation upon the duty of
to testify on behalf of accused |
persons: he said while of course, a t
great deal Of respect was due to one |
at the head of a coordinate branch of |
the government, yet that official posi-
ton Snouid not under any c1rcum-
stances interfere with the witnesses /
duty to give such knowledge as he I
possessed to the grand jury. He said
that II the Governor of the Territory
should refuse to give such testimony
as was in his power, giving as his reas-
on II am what I am" that such reas-
on would not suffice and could not ex-
cuse him from giving his testimony to
the grand jury, for it would be his
duty to testify, that the assurance of
Justice and the rights of the accused
might be upheld, even though the ac-
cused should be the most humble Chi
nese or Japanese laborer in the land.
The court then took up two volumes
which. either by accident or in antici-
patton, had been placed on the bar be-