The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-05-10

w
haleiopu, Lewis, Mahelona, Pulaa
| Sheldon, Shipman, Smith, Waterhouse
knudsen.
| Aoes-Aylett, Broad, Coelho, Copp
| Haia, kaniho, LinkaIani, Mahikoa
| Nakuina, Pail, Rice.
The bill was then reported to the
House as amended verbally and a writ
ten report will be submitted today.
ATTORNEY GENERAL REPLIES.
Attorney General Andrews sent the
following reply to the queries of the
| House regarding his attitude toward
| the County Act:
| Honolulu, May s., 1905.
To the Speaker and Members of the
House of Representatives of the
Territory OF Hawaii:
Gentlemen: Your favor of May Sth
| asking certain questions, duly receiv-
| ed, and in reply L would answer them
as follows:
/ First: In response to question mum
| bered /, ''have you expressed to any
person doubt as to the legality of
the County Act,' l have the honor
| to reply: Since the passage of the
County Act considerable doubt has
been expressed as to the legality
thereof, and any and all conversations
| by me had in relation to such doubt
have been to the erect that such doubt
should be removed by a decision OF
our Supreme Court.
That as Attorney General of the
Territory it was and is my duty to
uphold and not to attack the laws of
the Territory.
Second: In answer to your question
as to whether / have ''held any CON
| situations or interviews with any per-
sons, who have declared their inten-
ton to test the legality of the County
Act in the courts, 1 would reply, that
I believe that the only way we can be
assured that local self government,
such as this act provided for, can be
had under the present Organic Act, is
by bringing the matter Immediately to
the attention of our Supreme Court SO
that a decision might be rendered prior
to the involving of the Territory in the
large expense necessary to a complete
change in the form of government.
/ have caused the matter to be taken
up for presentation before our courts,
with the distinct understanding and
intention of defending the act against
any and all attacks, and such [ con-
slider to be my duty in the premises.
Third: In answer to your third ques-
tion as to whether / have stated to III.
E. Cooper and 7. McCants Stewart that
| desire them to assist me in defending
the act, and as to whether / have had
any correspondence with them l would
reply, that I requested both these gem
tlemen, who had acted as commission
ers in drawing up the act, to assist my
Office, provided that they would per-
form said services gratuitously, and
that I understood both gentlemen to
accept the offer, but later had my
doubts as to Mr.. Stewards accepting
the same without fee. AS result, [
wrote these gentlemen the letter at
tached hereto and have received an
answer from Mr.. Stewart, copy of
which / hereby attach.
Fourth: In answer to your question
as to whether 1 have stated to A. g.
M. Robertson that would be glad to
have him hold himself in readiness to
assist me, I would state that [ have
had some talk with Mr.. Robertson to
that effect, but have not yet decided
whether it is necessary to request his
assistance.
In closing I would state that under
the Organic Act it is the duty of my
Office to represent the people in all
government suits and [ would be
derel1ct in my duty if I should re-
quire the government to pay large
sums of>money to other counsel for
attending to these duties.
Yours respectfully,
(SiSned) LORRIN ANDREWS,
Attorney General.
Copies of the letters to Cooper and
Stewart were enclosed, as was Stew
art IS answer to the effect that he would
he glad to give his services to the
public free of any charge.
The correspondence was filed.