The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-04-04
SUPERVISORS
Continued From Page one,

Sheriff was notified. but took no action,
and. indeed. declined 10 take any ac-
ton. When arrangements had al
been made. the patcol wagon with an
| officer was sent TO take the prisoners
TO the police station. The County
Sheriff claims that he understood that
the High Sheriff would have an officer
on duty 10 guard the prisoners This
was not the arrangement according to
the High Sheriff. and your committee
is unable To say what, IL any. the ar
rangement was between the High Sher-
if and the County Sheriff as the evil
dence of both is somewhat vague. The
County Sheriff further claims that II
was the duty of the High Sheriff TO pro-
vide guard for these prisoners. This
claim would not appear to be sustained
by the Court or the Attorney General;
but your committee does not attempt
TO pass upon that phase OF the ques-
| ton
The fact remains that for the space
of two hours or more some eleven or
twelve prisoners. who had been ar
rested by the County Sheriff on a
bench warrant, were left by him un-
guarded in the court room. and an
officer was only sent when the patrol
wagon came TO take charge Of them
after the arraignments were made.
The attention Of the Sheriff was called
to the unguarded condition Of the
prisoners, and he declined TO send an
officer to guard them. The next day
the Court from the bench criticized
the leaving of prisoners in such a man.
ner without guards. and stated that il
was the duty Of the County Sheriff 10
look after the prisoners
From the facts as developed by the
interviews. your committee, without
any reference TO the law governing the
control and custody OF prisoners. and
without reference to any understand |
ing or misunderstanding between the
County Sheriff and the High Sheriff, |
would say that the County Sher-
if. in declining 10 send up an
officer when notified Of the un-
guarded condition Of the prisoners. 4
acted in an improper manner. and that
he was careless in failing 10 see that 4
the prisoners were properly safeguard
ed. If there was a question as 10
it was the duty OF the County /
Sheriff or the High Sheriff TO guard /
ing arrested the men on bench war
rants directed 10 him, should have
seen that the prisoners were not left
unguarded while he brought that CUES
ton TO "a head with the High Sheriff
(see evidence Of County Sheriff. II
the County Sheriff had an insufficient
force to properly guard the prisoners
he should have taken some steps 20
prevent their being left unguarded
while he brought that matter 10 "a
head" with the supervisors. (as was
his statement according TO the balm.
Mr. QUINN. In other words, We think
the Sheriff acted improperly IN allow
ing prisoners to go at large because OF
some dispute with the Board OF Su-
oervisors. or unsettled question OF duty
between himself and the High Sheriff.
II, on the other hand, II was the duty
lnder the law for these prisoners ar
-ested on Bench Warrants 10 be safe
guarded by the County Sheriff, and II
he custody and control OF these pris-
,ners by law was in the County Sher-
n. then your committee must say that
n leaving these prisoners unguarded
md practically at large. the County
Sheriff failed TO perform his duty. and
( he refused 70 safeguard the prison
rs, then he refused 10 perform his
luty under the law. But. as we have
stated before. your committee does not
,ass on the Law which prescribes the
luties Of the County Sheriff. as that
= more particularly within the prov
nee Of the law adviser Of the board. /
4 review OF all the evidence leads
Is. inevitably. 20 the conclusion that.
z this matter, the County Sheriff did
lot do his entire duty as a careful.
prudent officer. although we are not :
prepared 10 say that he wilfully IN
ended TO neglect or 20 refuse 20 per
orn the duties imposed on him BY
aw.
Accordingly y1ur committee here
With submits its report 20 the Board I
Z Supervisors. without any recon- I
leaving IL 20 the board 20 I