Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1904-04-27
DEFENSE FOR FRtAR.

From the defense published by Mr.
Illusions paper the Advertiser, II
appears that Chief Justice Frear be-
lieves that he did right in volunteer
ing suggestions as to how the County
law should be drawn. This causes the
Bulletin no surprise though this paper
finds II difficult TO blend the claims to
judicial Righteousness with the hyster-
ical character OF the defense. Duties
performed in the ordinary walks Of
judicial precedent require no defense.
Furthermore. Frear's record in the
Davis and Humphreys dlsbarment
cases indicates that the Chief Justice
has some ideas on judicial propriety
that are, to say the least, queer.
Though son-in-law Of the principal
factor of the Oahu Railway Company
and receiving remuneration as trustee
for the bondholders OF the corporation.
Mr.. Frear did not consider himself dis
qualified to sit as judge and jury In
the Davis case and join in decision
charging Davis with practically black
mailing the corporation with which he,
Frear, was so intimately associated. 1t
l. hardly necessary to state that the
Bulletin honestly differs with the Chief
Justice and his supporter, Thurston, on
matters of judicial integrity as found
in the practice of the Chief Justice in
meddling with laws while they are he
ing framed.
The defense Of the Chief Justice con-
tains much, to use the legal vernacular,
that is incompetent, irrelevant and be-
side the mark. Hawaii precedents are
quoted. Unfortunately Hawaiian pre-
cedents do not strengthen the Chief
Justices position. Mr.. Frear is Chief
Justice in an American Territory and
Is bound in honor If not in fact by the
best American precedents-such pre-
Cedents, for instance, as Governor Car
ter has followed in his administration
as chief executive. Carriers success Is
found in his steady conformity to
American principle, which he as an
honest American official, Is bound to
support II the Chief Justice were right
there is no occasion TO seek cover
under Hawaiian presidents.
The defenders cite the instance OF a
New York Justice who presided over
a Constitutional Convention in New
York State. We trust that our Chief
Justice at least, II not his defenders,
Iealizes the difference between State
Constitution and a law passed by the
Legislature under that Constitutional
a
by the courts. At least the Bulletin
has been unable to find a precedent
for II. They are not SO numerous in
American history that a possible Ha-
waiian precedent would serve as COM
petent defense.
Again, former member of the New
York Legislature says he was APP
preached by Justice Finch Of the Court
Of Appeals and requs sIed to vote for q
bill that was pending, The New York
World says that the New York Legis-
lature now In session is the biggest
Doodle session ever held. We cannot
say ,whatithe Legislature was in which
the ex=member sat. This is not vital
anyway Where the eS-Inember fails In
making a parallel is in not stating
whether Justice Finch had hand in
framing the bill or volunteered sug-
gestions regarding its makeup. He
does not state what the bill was about,
something very necessary to establish
Ing its position as precedent for Mr.
Frear
AS to the codifcatlon presidents
there is a marked difference between
codifying laws and volunteering sug-
gestions to a County law. The former
is a guide to formalities, the latter