The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1907-02-13
GETS AFTER THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Continued from page onej

allowance 81 would be- entirely within
my discretion whether to- call upon the
other side as to whether am appeal Oh
writof error would lie. u would Doe en-
tirely within my discretion and It Is
the usual practice to pass on questions
of the allowance of an appeal on writ
or error ok parte and perhaps the same
would be true i'm regard TO the inser-
ton of what might be- called a tenn
porary or restraining order i'm this de-
cree by the court for "a temporary pur-
pose, at least pending the presentation
of the writ of error or appeal for all
llowance by the Chief Justice. and there
fore the court does not care to hear
the attorney general upon this question
at the present time, at least
THE statement made by the attor-
ney general that the exchange of the
Lanai lands has been carried out pre-
sents a more serious question. That
presents the question as TO whether
this court should extend the injunction
against doing something that has all
ready been whether that would
not be futile and be nonsensical. In
view of this particularly, the court does
mot care to hear the attorney general
upon the question whether an appeal %
writ of error would lie i'm this case. 1t
seems to the court that the attorney
general has forfeited his right to SOU
sderation by the court, except SO far
as is absolutely necessary, by his con-
duct i'm this matter. He has taken the
position, as shown by his acts that no
decree was necessary in this case and
he does not care for a decree. He was
the natural one, as the winning party.
! to prepare a form of decree and present
it to the court and he has not cared
to do so. He has chosen to act Jpn
the mere opinion or decision of the
court without doing so. He ought to
= have known better as a member of the
= bar and as the attorney general of the
- Territory than to have done so-than
to have advised the completion of this
act before the decree Of the court was
. entered. His conduct was disrespect-
: full to the court and presented a bad
example for the bar generally and
:. tends to lessen the regard of the COM
- munity at large for the court He may
=, not technically be guilty of a con-
tempt of court though as to that we
express no opinion at the present time
T. but it bordered upon that and except
d so far as it is absolutely necessary fol-
sl him to be heard as matter of right
'e the court does not care to hear him.
The question now is as to whether
n an injunction may be extended where
2, an act to be enjoined has already beer
S. completed, and as to that we are ready
4, to hear counsel for the complainant
l. I do not know whether my asso.
!, ciates care to express their views upor
Y this
Justice HaHwel: 81 was with the
&c majority in thinking that the plaintiff
! had made out no case and that tn,
o law permitted the exchange. Tha
:. makes no difference. The plaintiff haC
!, a right to carry his case to the Supreme
Court of the United States and nothing
that the opposite party could do e
Illustrate or make that right ineffective
can for one moment receive the sane
is ton or approval of this court while
lie am a member Of it, But the possibl,
re consequences of such action are of
II most serious nature. They cannot nov
IS be fOreseen. I cannot express perhaps
ID sufficiently my surprise at the risks un
s. dertaken by the attorney general II
y advising that course.
Justice Wilder: Il have a little deli
o. cacy in stating my views on thi
10 matter of the action of the attorne.
70 general in view of the position I tool
n that the exchange was illegal any way
"a but I will say that l heartily concu
!, in the reprimand administered to tn
- attorney general"
The court then informer Rob
ertson that it would hear him upon tn
best method of procedure i'm the case
H. Robertson contended that it was pro
III per for the court to proceed, as If tn
s. deal had never taken place Their
al was nothing on the record to show tina
ne the injunction had ben disobeyed ex
n cept the ex parte statements of tn
attorney general. The court Shout
as allow the appeal TO be taken and pro
rs ced as if no change in the conditio
re Of the case had occurred. In reply t
questiones by the court. the attorne
W insisted that while the deal might hav
N been made in fact, legally it could nc
and had not been made and the issue
- could be considered by the U. S. Su
- preme Court upon their merits withou
any regard to whether the deal ha
been made or not.
Y Justice Hartwell thought that an at
81 torney would be bold to go before tn
80 Supreme Court upon such an appea
w. under such circumstances and express
:, ] ed doubt as to whether the teritorli
A. Court would not show a great deal
hardihood in allowing an appeal in sue
oI form to go before the higher tribunal
~ This question as TO what was the Pre-
per form Of procedure to follow appear
n ed quite doubtful to the Supreme cour
IS Justice Hartwell suggested that supple
re mentary proceedings might be brougi
re showing that the present injunction ha
III ben disregarded or that a reconveyanC
IL of the patent might be ordered. TT
tn, justice did not appear disposed
1s. favor the contention of Robertson thi
nd the court should proceed and continl
in the injunction, i'm disregard of the ia,
Ter that the act which it had sought