The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-07-26
The NJ BRyOE
BONDS ARE
GOOD,
The First Judge
Is Reversed
| Again.
ERRORS OF JUDGE
POINTED OUT
His Wild Attack Upon Plantations
Scored by the Supreme
Court.

The Supreme Court. in a unanimous
8 opinion handed down yesterday, hello
that investments of trust funds il
plantation bonds may be made revers-
8 ing the decision of Judge Humphreys
given a few months ago. The opinion
is written by Justice Galbraith and
s while it is. as usual, a conservative one
Humphreys is censured in a number OF
Particulars The lower court is sustain
ed as to the investment in portion OF
the bonds because Of their purchase by
& the guardian from company in which
he was treasurer and otherwise inter
ested-
AS to the main holding of Humphreys
that sugar bonds are not safe for In
vestment of trust funds, the lower
court is reversed, and 1t is also for
refusal TO follow the rulings of the Su-
preme Court given prior to annexation.
AS was well understood at the time,
MoBryde bonds were the basis of the
attack of Judge Humphreys. and this
fans through yesterdays decision of the
supfSpe Court.
j Judge Humphreys delivered his opin-
g Jon last April disappearing the invest
ment of trust funds in bonds of Nc
Bryde and waialua Plantations and
Oahu Railway. after a master appoint
ed by him had reported the soundness
of the investment, made by A W. Car
ter. as guardian of the Annie T. X.
8 Parker estate. The decision was
3 lengthy, more than double the length
+ of the opinion OF the Supreme Court
s the ruling was taken up with a lengthy
3 criticism of plantations, McBIyde In
particular, and of the grave dangers
d which threatened the sugar industry
. in the Hawaiian Islands.
= OF this sort of discussion the Supreme
g Court In its decision says: Much was
said at the argument and in the brief
u in this court on collateral subjects. we
3 cannot be expected to speculate or cal
culate the probabilities or chances IN
q der certain supposed or faneied condi-
q tionS of disaster or misfortune over
8 taking certain individual enterprises Of
this community or to speculate on the
motives that would prompt men to GER
tain action under certain conditions.
8 All these might be interesting and in
ssructiye themes for the philosopher,
publicist or moIalist, but they are not
in issue on this appeal, and we do not
care to announce a dictum upon any
Zone of them
Humphreys ruling referred to the
tanning decision in the following
terms:
But In SO far as the Banning case
fhoIds .that-rS fduciary may invest trust
1 fufFlS8in the bonds or other securities
of private, agricultural. mercantile OF
Industrial corporations. and that the
courts of equity and probate in this
/ Territory cannot, without trenchingI
upon legislative functions, direct the
trustee as to what securities he may
invest In, the court must and does
respectfully decline to follow that de-
4 olsion. The court has never considered
that the decisions of the Supreme Court
Il of Hawaii antedating the annexation
o. the Islands by the United States,
are binding upon it, barring, of course.
such decisions as may have construed
statutes still in force. and such other
decisions as may have established rules
s Of property"
OF this fiat refusal to follow the de-
4cision of a. higher court Justice Gal
braith says
his Is nct lDS vie" liiStN ILLS WI
las now constituted has taken of those
decisions. Nor is il the view taken OF
the United States District Court for
1.-THE Territory or of the United States
h'ourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Much unpleasant criticism has been
made of the decision in the Banning
lease. We are inclined to think that
1.-THE greater part at least of this is UNI
swarranted. The doctrine there an
bounced is not new nor is it novel 1t
HAS been the law in some of the states
4for half a century and has been ap-
Eproved by the Supreme Court of thel
II nitssaas States
Hur&hreys' principal abuse OF bond
&investrnents was directed az the Nc
#Bryde Sugar Co. Of this Justice CAL
zbraith, speaking for the court, says:
'On the question of the sufticiency
Eof the security for the McBryde bonds,
1--WE Will state without going into detail
that we consider the evidence was air
Fple to show that the property conveyed
10y the trust deed is sufficient securityi