Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-10-23

bail on the first. That was stated in
open court"
Mr.. Dole, replying. said the penalty
for embezzlement Of public funds by
public official was Imprisonment not to
exceed ten years or a fine not to exceed
Ave times the amount embezzled. For
the embeZzlement of s3249~bail was
fixed at $4,000. which Judge Gear reduc-
ed to $4,000. The matter came before
Judge Gear on the approval of the
bond, which gave scope for a proper
difference of opinion. While the whole
property in which the surety held 9Th |
interest was worth Eve times as much |
as the bail. the diftulty was the un-
comeatability of the property. Now the |
prisoner was charged with the embez-
Element of s49S0 odd Judge Wilcox |
fixed the bail in this case in about the |
same proportion to the amount taken |
as Judge Gear had done in the other |
case. There was total embezzlement
of $500 and odd charged.
"If person can embezZle money
from the public treasury and escape
~
caught, besides standing a chance OF
not being caught" proceeded the At
torney General. the Government has
absolutely no protection against embez-
element. The money is no security
against that sort of crime"
He went on to say that an unfortun-
ate condition of affairs was found to
exist in certain government depart
ments. Not only the circumstances OF
the prisoner must be considered and
the amount of the penalty, but the
gravity of the crime. II John Doe
without a nickel and having no friends
embezzles public money, was he to be
let free on bail OF one nickel? The
speaker had no feelings against this
prisoner. nor desire to do him harm,
but he could not without being false to
his public duties consent to reduction
of bail.
Mr.. Davis warmly contended that the
Attorney General had given reasons
why His Honor must reduce the bail.
, He had said that Wright must be kept
in Jail because other public officials
were suspected OF dishonesty.
Mr.. Dole denied having made such an
argument. What he had intimated was
that the government wanted to pre-
vent his leaving the country.
Mr.. Davis went on with a renewed
appeal to the court. Let the bail be
} reduced TO $4,000, which was sufficient
TO bind Wright TO fair and impartial
trial. While he held the Attorney Cen
eral in as high respect as he did any
official, yet the Attorney General was
Qver-zealous In this matter. The diff
Guilty raised about tfh surety was alb
the new word "uncomeatability. II
bail should be forfeited the govern
ment could go into court and compel
a sale Of the property.
The prisoner had rights as well as
the government. They were met at
every step by what the government
wanted, but neither that nor the clam.
or of the press would influence His
Honor, who would decide the matter
, in the forum OF his own conscience.
, They asked only for reasonable bail
and did not want straw bail.
Chief Justice Frear at once render
. ed his decision orally. There was NO
doubt the CGLsti'utIcl prohibited rX'
cessive bail. Tie question there was
). whether the bail was excessive. II
: was not the same as II the question
was there for the first time but whe
Their the District Magistrate had I'm
posed excessive bail. He quoted 4
n California case where all Of the Jus
J.. tices refused to reduce bail. The
10 said they were not to Judge the con
science OF the committing magistrate
nor TO substitute their conscicnces foi
, his.
Il do not know that need to rulI
b on this opinion" said the Chief Jus
l. tlce. In my own mind the bail fiXe.
d in this case Is reasonable"
Referring to the three conditions Il
ted as governing bail, he quoted iron
D. the Federal Reporter the doctrine tina
q II was not what the prisoner coul,
give but what might be reasonably eS
- pected of him. In the case to whicl
this related. as a matter OF fact, tn
prisoner was unable to give tn
amount fixed. The California Justice
said they were unable to assent t
the proposition that bail was exces
r sive because the prisoner was unabl
10 furnish II. II chat were granted tn