The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-05-10
WHAT IAUKEA SAYS.

"Mr. Cathcart has not given a con
else statement of the facts of the Du-
vauchelle case, as he claims, at all. The
statement reads to me as if he had
written it from memory, and a mighty
short memory at that said Sheriff
Iaukea last night. after he had been
shown the statement of the County At
torney. sent In as a communication to
the Advertiser as an answer to an edI-
torial of the previous day. Mr. Cath
cart, to the best of nv recollection, did
advise against the prosecution of Du-
vauchelle when the matter was first
under investigation by Mr.. Taylor, al
though | have no official report on file
to that effect. Every other important
fact in the case, however, is contained
in a report made by Mr.. Taylor to me,
which is on file in this department.
"Mr. Catheart says: Upon hearing
of the matte4.' but why does he not
say that the one he heard it from was
Mr. TAYLOR, who turned over to him all
the evidence in the case. He would
rather, it would seem, leave it to be in
ferred that Mr. Taylor was afraid to
have him go into the matter for fear of
other disclosures. He makes this clear
in saying that he learned that Mr..
Taylor considered that ! was prejudiced
against Duvauchelle and against the
police department and feared that Du-
vauehelle and the department would
not get a square deal at my hands.
Gone would think from that that the
police department, represented by Mr..
Taylor, was attempting to shield Du-
vauchelle and considered that it was
to be equally a defendant in the graft
charge Mr.. Cathcart knew then and
knows now that it was the wish of Mr..
Taylor to have the fullest investigation
and a prosecution. Taylor was not
only not afraid for the department, but
he personally reported the whele mat
ter to Cathcart. He is coupling Du-
vauchelle and the department as if to
say that the charge of graft against
the officer was a charge against the
whole department, when it was the de-
partment that worked ND the case and
placed it in his hands as the proper one
to prosecute.
"Mr. Cathcart in this communication
states with a show of seriousness that
evidence produced in the police court
trial of Tin Hoon which led Judge
w h1tney to state tflat ne was surprised
that DuvauchelIe had not been arrested
was not evidence enough for him to
bring the man to trial upon. 1t was
the judges comment, according to
Cathcart, that made him get busy, but
still he could find no evidence to war
rant him going to trial.
He is wrong, as well, when he says
that I first suspended the man after
he (Cathcart) had taken up the matter.
The man was suspended two days af-
ter the first intimation of his crooked
ness came to Mr.. Taylor, over a month
before the trial.
1.-THE reference to the case contained
in your editorial this morning was
founded on fact, except that / did not
cause Duvauchelle's arrest, having left
that to the grand jury's decision after
supplying Mr.. Cathcart, the prosecut-
ing officer. with evidence upon which
to base a case.
THE facts of the whole matter, as
officially reported to me by Mr.. Taylor,
and on file here, are: On Sunday,
February 10. 1907, a raid was made on
a gambling game at Kalihi by a white
police officer. who, according to the
Continued on Page Eight.)