The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-04-23
ARGUMENTS
ALMOST IN
Smith Case Will.
Be Submitted
Today.
| AMENDMENT IS
| UNNECESSARY
Lewis ard Andrews Close Their
Arguments in Supreme Court
and Davis Begins.

when the Supreme Court adjourned
for the day yesterday afternoon George
Davis was in the midst OF his argument
in the Smith contempt case. he saio a'
adjournment that he would still require
two hours time, so that the case wiz
hardly be submitted to the court pc
fore this afternoon.
Mr.. Lewis opened the case with the
reading of the petition, and Mr.. An
dpevs then presented the amendment !.
netice of which had been given MOI .
day. Mr.. Davis objected to the amend
ment as unusual. and Mr.. Andrews re-
plted that he had offered 1t SIMPLY 10
SET out more specifically what the
.yiginal petition contained, and was |
willing to withdraw 1t If the court neio
,ee broad allegation OF irregularity 10
be sufficient.
After consultation with the two JUS
tices. Chief Justice Frear announced
.arhe court disallows the amenoIneh.,
On the ground that it is unnecessary
nv consent of counsel, Mr.. Smith was
excused from attendance at the argu-
ment Mr. Andrews said he mad no Cd
lection and Mr.. Davis did not AFTER ne
theusht over the matter aWnlie' ne
said: II don't want to keep MN mere
IL he wants TO wriLe editorials uoliS
want to keep him from his Iabors.
Mr. lewis opened the argument. lie
said that the case revolved upon two
very important points, both necessary
TO the welfare OF any country: on the
one hand the power OF the court 10
punish for contempt as limited oy the
LEGISLATURE which created IT, and on the
other hand the right granted py the
Constitution of the United States 10
every citizen to think, write. act ana
| talk freely.
The right of the great organs or the
press to comment upon commercial
| legislative and judicial actions was un-
| senied in American Jurisprudence. This
| question involved four provisions-hrst,
! have the Circuit Court Judges the right
10 punish for constructive contempt!
| Second, the publication in question re-
| ferred to a closed case, and therefore
1 was not In contempt or an obstruction
| of Justice. Third, that the defendant
| had purged himself OF the contempt In
| his answer, and fourth, that the pro-
Il ceedings were Illegal in that they were
! held before an Illegally and self-consti-
| tinted court, there being no provision
II for a court en- banc.
ii Hr. Lewis contended that the courts
were legislative bodies, and conse-
uuentiy limited by the local statutes.
He argued also that the publication re-
ferred to a matter already dlsposeu Oh
and that IL the courts have power 10
punish for comment upon cases alreaoy
! closed, the freedom OF speech guaran-
| teed by the constitution was mono"
mockery He pointed out in this con-
| nectfon the distinction between the NC
/ ~ nd
Mr. Andrews followed, pointing OUT
the safeguards which surrounded
judges in the conduct of their courts
and their right to prosecute for GRIM
inaI libel or damages What halo IN
I vests the judge OF the Circuit Court,
, asked Andrews, that makes him the
/. highest power In the land. TO punish
where no one else can? he arg ueo
also that Mr.. Smith had purged him
self of the contempt In his answer. pS
= disclaiming any intention to interiors
with the trial or OF knowledge OF such
case being pending on the same state
of facts
Mr.. Davis replied at length. He
claimed that intention had nothing &c
do with the contempt: that If the
4 newspapers wished TO lampoon tine
Judge with editorials and cartoons they
| must be careful not to interfere WIZ
the rights Of third parties. He con
tended that no statute was neeoeo u
give the courts the power to sit Ell
banc. but that IL was the division int
separate courts that required leglsia
| tive action.
Justice Perry interrupted to ask MI
Davis whether the two judges were
! sitting with the presiding judge as
part of the court OF simply il an ad
| yisory capacity. MIR. Davis replied;
Il think 1t looks as il they were SIT
ting as advisory judges"
Then he added: mo, IL looks TO M
as If they were sitting, and all actlnt
and participating. Anyhow If the oth
ers did sit il was only an irregular1t1
at the trial. and IL cannot be inquired
into upon habeas corpus" He conteINi
| power TO limit the inherent right OF TIT
Circuit Court to punish for contempt
AT o'clock adjournment was takel
TO this morning at 10.
w. T. 9. Hasson has asked TO hav
substituted Elise S. V. Neumann as ex
ecutrix for Paul Neumann. deceased i
ths ease OF Hasson VS.. Paine ct al.
- Petition for sale OF personal propert
has been filed in the matter OF the es
d sate of Samuel Pedro. an insane Pc:
ssB.
Notice OF appeal is given in the cas-
Of Schlief Va. Joseph Clark ct al
ID w II. Smith, OF Hilo. was admit:e
1t ~ practice by the Supreme Court ye-
tsSaay.
Demurrer has been fled in the cas-
y. Of Lee Yin ct al. VS.. Waikiki Land
Loan Association ct al
-