The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1908-10-24
CATHCART ADDRESS.
lContlnued from Page oneJ

tCoutinued from Page One.J
have tried since | have been here to do
my duty. ! know those who are ac-
quainted with me best, and acquaint
ed with my work best are friends of
mine; l know they want to see me
successful in this election. OF all the
members Of the bar / can count on the
fingers of one hand the enemies | have
got and / can count on the fingers of
my hands those who will vote against
me. | think | can say that that is
the best recommendation that lawyer
can have. 1t is the members of the
bar with whom you associate, it is they
/ who know your work, and they would
not be, as they are, practically unani-
! nous in my favor if it were not that
! they know l do good work and that /
! do honest work.
If | had wished to be dishonest there
certainly was the opportunity given me
when ! was Deputy Attorney General,
for, as | have said, the work practical
ly was left to me; during most of the
time there was only myself and Mr..
Dole in the office. During a great part
of the time he was not well, and when
he was he never thought of appearing
in the trial of a case. and | had not
alone this circuit, but ! had the cir
cults Of the other islands and every
thing was left to me, so that if | had
wanted to be dishonest l could have
been dishonest, but | am poor today.
Now, gentlemen why should live here
for ten years, why should / neglect the
opportunities which l had then in Or
der to become dishonest, at my age,
and after living here as l have said
respected and looked up to by many,
many people? (Applause)
, Why does not the critic, instead of
bespattering me with this midland
: Smith he certainly has in full measure
! and overlooking the vocabulary of the
stews and of the dunghill-why, intsead
of appealing to the public after this
fashion does he not criticize some OF
the work that have done? Now it is
true that he has criticized in two in
stances, that one | nolle pressed and
the other | declined to appear in One
was the DCvauchelle case, and | nolle
pressed That in December of last year,
stated my reasons in open court, and
the case lay there until Mr.. Smith
brought it out in the columns of his
Advertiser in an attack on me. Now
the Attorney General took that case up,
had Devauchelle re-indicted, and the
:, case was tried; Mr.. Charles Achi de-
Tended and Mr.. Larnach prosecuted,
and the jury was out five or six minu-
ties when they returned with verdict
of not guilty. Now, could man ask
a better justification for my conduct
in nolle pressing it, than the verdict
of the jury there? Now that is one of
the criticisms they have made, of the
way handled cases, and you see what
that amounts to.
Il ~ Now the Lee Let case. He opened
on me with all the turret guns in that
I case, and he claims that | had let the
case drag along and had not prosecut-
cd it. Now he overlooked the fact thHt
a the indictment was found in February
Of 1906, by the Attorney Generals Of
hce Mr.. Peters then was Attorney
General, and Peters then was handling
the case, and Peters then did not try
that case all during the months OF
February, March, April, May and June
ali those months the jury was sitting,
| all those months the case was there
for trial, and it was now and fresh
, then, and | had no more to do with it
+ than any one of you gentlemen in the
audience, and | never had anything
to do with it until the last week in
August of 1906, when the new Attorney
General asked me to try all of the cases
and among them was included this Lee
Let case. Now it was set down foe
trial, and it was postponed because o!
Mr.. Thompson, who was attorney foV
the defendant, having to go to the
coast for reasons which absolutely pl e,
vented me from refusing his reques,
for continuance; it was reset fol-
some time along in December. Nov
5 ! wanted to clean off the whole i'm
l inal calendar for that September term
= and would have been successful if Il
= were not for the illness of Judge Lind.