The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1908-10-02

his defense when charges of professiolrI
al improperly are made against hin
There are good many others. toll
who do not want to have Willie Crav
ford and Fred Maxine and the runnefs|
for the Oriental underworld semi-ofs,
cial county officers. That is why theIln
will vote against Cathcart. m
Attorney General on Cathcart. ~
Methods. IN
The view which the present Afford
nev General, Charles R. Hemenway,E
holds of the propriety of a publiN
prosecutor taking divorce or otherk
cases in private practise in which sit
nations are likely to arise where pri.,l
vate interests and public duty clash.
may be judged from the rule he laidl
down for those of his office when he
entered upon it. Mr.. Hemenway is.
now in Washington to attend the Su-
preme Court in cases in which the Ter
ritory is a party. Deputy Attorney
General Whitney, who is now in charge
of the office, said yesterday: "Nr-
Hemenway laid down the rule for those
of his office that they were not to ac-
cept, in private practise, divorce or
other cases likely to involve their
public duty. This rule, of course, he
can apply only to the force of his
own office. He can not enforce it OH
the County Attorneys Office.
There is no mistaking the policy this.
rule implies. Measured by it, Cath
cart IS practise is outlawed. It even,
takes from him the plea in justification,
he made to Judge De Bolt, "that they
all do ito They do not all do it..
Cathcart's Office is the only one under
the Territorial jurisdiction that does.
do it.
The Present fragrant Case. -
Cathcart in his answer to the Adver;-
| tiser says that the charge in Mrs..
Wills divorce libel charging his client
with adultery, was withdrawn, and that
| therefore there was no criminal charge
left>in the case which would make his
services as private attorney conflict;
with his duty as public prosecutor.
| The charge was not withdrawn. It.
still remains in the libel. The libel
was not amended by striking it out.
Mr.. Chillingworth, who represents the
libelant, simply stated that he would
not press the charge, adding however
that he had witnesses to testify to it.
But even if the formal charge had
been stricken from the libel, the wife.
throughout her testimony in the case
testified to her husbands infidelity and
his illicit cohabitation with the woman
mentioned in the libel. During the
time that husband and wife were try
ing to patch up their difficulties, ac-
cording to the testimony of the wife,
his infidelity with this woman was dis
cussed between them, and was one of
the difficulties in the way of recon-
Citation, and she testified that when
the efforts at reconciliation finally fail
ed her husband went to living with
this woman.
Thus County Attorney Cathcart was
compelled to listen in the trial of the
case to sworn testimony that his client
was guilty of a crime for which it
was his duty as public prosecutor to
set proceedings in motion to punish
him. He was actually engaged before
Judge Lindsay in defending a man
against accusations of crime. If the
statute quoted in yesterdays Advertiser
means anything, it means that County
Attorney Cathcart is not merely guilty
of gross improperly, but as it would
seem of conduct for which he should
be disbarred