The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-08-22
Legality of Court
Questioned by
Dole.
GEAR OPPOSES
HUMPHREYS
Supreme Court Listens to Dis
cussion OF Circuit Court
Appropriation.

The Supreme Court sitting In special
session yesterday considered the appeal
of Judge Humphreys from the decision
of Auditor Austin in refusing to allow
the judiciary department to draw from
the general expense the sum OF 5000
which it is claimed was enormously
paid to the bailiffs from that aDpro-
priation. The matter was set for ten
O'Clock and at that hour the court COM
posed of Justice Perry. w. o. Smith
and ]. T. De Bolt met, but upon the
request of Judge Humphreys adjourn
ed until afternoon.
Several questions not down on the
program developed during the hearing.
The first was the constitutionaiity OF
the court convened to hear the matter
which If upheld, declared Judge Hum
phreys, would invalidate every chamber
order made by circuit judge and
every act of the district magistrates.
A second question was the legality or
the bailiff act itself which was followed
by a declaration that IL the contention
of Judge Humphreys is true the legis-
lature had provided limitless appro-
priation for court bailins.
Interest was added 10 the argument
by the sudden and unexpected appear
ance Of Judge Gear in the matter. who.
after two vain attempts to interrupt
the argument Of the Attorney General.
finally stated that he disagreed entire
Iy with his colleagues on the bench and
thought the payment OF the bailiffs had
been legal. He also declared the action
Of the Supreme Court to be illegal and
his attitude in the entire matter. and
his opposition to the first and third
Judges caused somewhat Of a sensa-
tion.
Judge Humphreys in opening the case
said that he felt some doubt as 10 his
right to appear, in view Of the statute
which prohibited circuit judges from
practicing. He based his appearance
as counsel upon the right OF every man
to appear in court In person. and as
he was the appellant in the case he
thought he should be heard This Is
not a case in which the court can be
represented by amicus curae. and DO
not feel like asking a member or the
bar to act gratitutiously. my personal
interest in the matter is so slight as
not to justify an expenditure out OF
my own pocket for counsel"
Judge Humphreys further stated
that he did not appeal in accordance
with the section which provided for
differences between ministers Of the
government, but simply as a person
aggrieved at the action OF the auditor.
He then called attention to the report
Of Chief Justice Frear for 1900, saying
that this showed that he had not con-
templated that bailifs pay shoulo
come out of the general expense appFo-
priation. AS TO the separate item ia
the salary appropriation bill MAKING
provision for bailift OF the SupreIii9
Court he said that this act was super
fuous and in no way inyalidateo the
baiIiff act. That this made no diner
ence he illustrated by showing that the
organic act had provided that the hlsh
Sheriff and Attorney General were TWO
distinct officers, and yet the legisiatuIe
had placed the High Sheriff IN the At
torney Generals department aEo Ho
was paid out OF that appropriation. Inc
hai1iff act he said further did not limit
the appropriation for bailiffs to Two
Years but that the legislature had IN
tended to so limit it. In response 70
question from ". Smith counsel rep.leo
that the appropriation would date Two
wears from the passage OF the act On
April 2e. 1901. The title OF the act
relf Judge Humphreys contenoeo'
showed the intent Of the legislature;
This provided for the compensation 3"N