The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-09-20
SMITH NOT EXPELLED
Continued from Page /,


of this report, be taken in the matter
This recommendation is subject, how
ever, 10 the ruling of the Association
as to whether the more Ienient course
SO recommended is permissible under
our Constitution. If the Association
shall be of the opinion that Section 4
OF the Constitution is mandatory. it
| will. of course, follow the procedure
there prescribed"
| Judge Stanley resigned the chair
temporarily to Mr.. Robertson, being a
member Of the committee signing the
Smith report. F. E. Thompson moved
that the report of the committee be
adopted and the recommendations car
ried out. This brought Mr. Kinney TO
his feet with the following motion and
, resolution:
Resolved, That the report of the
! committee be accepted and placed on
| file; and
Resolved, That the action Of Carl
S. Smith, under investigation by the
committee. shows that he has been
guilty of professional misconduct, and
that his own defense shows that he has
been guilty of grave negligence of duty
| towards his clients"
] Mr.. Thompson entered a protest
against the resolution on the ground
| that it was out of order. as the con-
| Guiding portions dealt with matters
which the committee could not go into
Mr.. Kinney disagreed with Mr.
| Thompson. Mr.. Robertson said that in
it's double barreled presentation. the
resolution contained matters that were
foreign to the report.
! Thompson motion, stated that the COM
mittee had not found Mr.. Smith guilty
within the meaning of the constitution
The report having been returned to
| the Association it was up to that body
to determine whether or not charges
should be preferred The committee
had done it's work and had discharged
a disagreeable duty.
In defense of his own position Mr..
j Kinney stated that it had been said
| that he was after Smiths scalp. He
| was not There was no animus what
ever. He did not care to preclude Mr..
Smith from earning his bread and but
ter.
THE vital thing that this Associa ton
is called upon to do is to declare it's
conviction upon certain issues raised
in this report" said he. 1.-THE Associa-
llOi1 IlOSl Call d Spdue d space. h1nUly
motives dictated the recommendations
in that report. when they said that he
must have written that letter with his
eyes shut. [ don't want to vote upon
this particular part of the report.
may be charitable enough not to want
to record my vote upon this point.
We don't want to stultify ourselves
or occupy a position that layman can
riddle to pieces, and they can riddle
!. this matter as it stands until we have
MT leg to stand upon.
1 'In so far as the report discloses neg
/ ligence to his clients then / believe We
have a right to go into that. We have
gone to the limit of indulgence if we
merely declare that he was guilty of
Iunprofessional conduct. He was guilty
/ of gross negligence to his clients
| He declares in his letter to the At
| tcrney Generals Department, I have
carefully considered the question which
you submit to me, which is whether
| have any facts to present which would
warrant interference of the executive
| in reduction of the sentence, and must
reply in the negative
| He says again in his supplementary
| letter: AS I now recall it, did not
have an opportunity to open and read
my letters when they came from the
postofhce, but was obliged to postpone
| the examination of my mail until the
morning following. / then called my
stenographer and dictated answers to
letters requiring immediate reply as
rapidly as 1 opened and read them.
Within five minutes after reading the
letter requesting my views / had die
tated the reply and filed the letter.
Later in the day when MY stenogra pher
gave me my letters for signature, I
signed the one addressed to Mr.. Mil
verton without reading it, more than
to notice which letter it was and that
it was properly addressed
He also states that he believed this
to be a personal letter to Mr.. Milver-
ton, statement which he absolutely
repudiates later. Then he adds: I be-
lieve that the jury might very we'll
have found that two or possibly three
of the defendants could be exonerated
or found guilty of a crime of lesser
degree. but it seemed to ME that the
evidence was sufficient to warrant the
verdict
This is profession calling for fidelity
to clients, but there has been wanton
violation end disregard of ethics, over
topping everything else.
Mr.. Smith nailed their coffin lid down
when he made his declaration to Mr..
Mflverton, as if he had been their
enemy and not their attorney. He
disposed of that letter in five minutes,
and when the last fight was being
made for them by one lone parson and
he wrote that letter L don't believe
there is any one here would say that
he acted unwittingly. I don't believe
this association can support any such
position.
IF we don't prosecute him, well and
good II we don't expel him. well and
good. But when we declare to the
public that that man, mature in his
professional experience, did not know
better, that he was not violating
the ethics of his profession, we do
wrong. He declared to the officers of
the law in his five-minute letter that
he had forgotten the record. 1t was