The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-10-01
rATNCART IN PRIVATE
PRACTISE NOT TRUE TO
HIS OATH OF OFFICE
Draws Salary From the County to Prosecute
Crir rninal Charges---Secures Money From
Clients CriminaIIy Charged.

and prosecute-if accepting fee from
the alleged criminal does not shut the
official eye and keep the private one on
the lookout for further fees.
Attorney General Should Investigate.
This appears to be case which the
Attorney General certainly ought to in.
vestigate. Cathcart is a deputy attor>
ney general Can the department afford
to have deputy who viii openly
violate that provision of the Revised
Laws (Section 1551) which provides
that the Attorney General "shall not
receive any fee or reward from or in
behalf of person or prosecutor, for SER
vices rendered in any prosecution or
business to which it shall be his duty
to attend; nor be concerned as counsel
or attorney for either party in any civil
action depending upon the same state
of facts This statute, of course, ap
plies to the deputies of the Attorney
General, OF whom Cathcart is one, the
County Act in its provisions making
this clear
Moreover the general divorce law pro-
vides that if the Judge have reason to
believe that there may be collusion in
any divorce case brought before him,
or that important testimony can be
procured which has not been produced,
it shall be his duty TO continue the
case, and the Attorney General shall
be heard to establish the fact of collu-
sion or of the existence of evidence
not produced. Now, judge cannot
suspect collusion, or that important
testimony can be procured which has
not been produced" until the case is
actually brought before him. Then |
fancy judge having to turn to Cath
cart to secure evidence of collusion or !
to produce important testimony when |
he, although drawing the taxpayers
money for the very purpose, has taken
private fees to make out the best case
he can for his client in the particular
case, case in which his client is
charged with a criminal offense.
What position viii Judge Lindsay be
in if in the progress of the case he
should suspect collusion9 Could he ex-
pect Cathcart to help him trace it7
Could he expect this County Attorney
to produce further important testi-
nony" if that testimony were to be
lsed against his private client? What
1ind of a position is this when a public
,fficial ties his hands from possibil-
ty of doing what may be his public
luty and placing Judge Lindsay in a
position where he also may be prevent
d from enforcing the law of the lands
Judge De Bolts Strong Statement.
1t was in regard to this possibility
f situation that Judge De Bolt said
'fI consider it highly i'm
roper for any prosecuting officer to ],
ppear as private counsel in any di-
oree case. / have expressed this opin
On to a number of lawyers, and ]
hink to one or two of the judges. Mr..
athcart has appeared before me in
everal divorce cases and I asked him
he question once if he did not think
here was an impropriety in his so ap- :
caring as private counsel while he oc- :.
npied the position of public prosecu- :, q
n. He did not answer the question,
erely replying that Fthey all do it,
: that they have always done it.
e'Firmly convinced of the extreme
npropriety of it, of the embarrass-
ent it may lead both lawyers and
ldges into, I have given considerable
lought to some means of remedying
(. The law as it stands does not seem :
give a judge any power to prevent : :
except by calling attention to the :,
ross impropriety of it. At one time :
thought of trying to remedy it by =
rnle of court But that can hardly :
ach it. If the public prosecutor has !"
right to appear in such cases, he :
N not be prevented by rule of =
,urt.
ffThe statute requires me to make IA "a
annual report to the Chief Justice, u
ID I have in the past included in yt
CONTINUED on Page Two.) II