The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1909-01-22

tiers, that it was impossible to get
those appointments confirmed before
the recess, although an attempt was
made to poll the committee, and the
consequence is that there is some nm
certainty as to whether the judges of
those circuits have for a time been
legally in office. At that time muir
der ease was going on in Hilo, which,
believe, fortunately was finished lust
before the term of Judge Parsons ex-
PRED. 1t might have produced an EN-.
barrassng situation.
The other amendment provided for
in this section is that the Governor
may remove from Office any of the
heads of departments-that is what it
comes down to-without the consent
of the Legislature. This is. proyi-
sion which has been recommended.
well, pretty nearly ever since Terrific.
rial government was established. 1t
may be that it should not be quite SO
broad. and l have recommended to the
committees that it be made to read in
this fashion: "He may remove from
office, for cause and after notice and
an opportunity to be heard, any such
officers. although / think that is not
usually inserted in the case of APP
pointive' officers. But there is no par
ticular objection. The idea is that if
an officer proves to be dishonest or
incompetent between sessions of the
Legislature, it ought to be possible to
remove him without calling special
session of the Senate at an expense of
some thousands of dollars. OF course.
in the Federal Government the Presi-
dent can remove officers without cause
II he wishes to. In principle there
ought to be some such provision.
Section s amends section 81 of the
Organic Act with reference to the
disqualification of judges. Its princi-
pal provision is that a Judge who has
been of counsel in case shall be dis
qualified from sitting in the case, our
Supreme Court having held that that
is not at present disqualification. 1t
obviously should be, as / think all
the judges will agree, but they had
to hold according to what they con-
sidered the law 1t also amends the
section in certain minor respects; for
instance, it permits Judge to sit on
new trial of case, which 1 think
judges and members of the bar gener-
ally feel should be permitted. The
old provision on this subject has, L
think, not been found satisfactory.
Again, instead of disqualifying a Judge
from sitting in any case in which he
may have given previous Judgment,
it provides that he shall be disqual-
fed from sitting on an appeal from
any Judgment he has rendered. For
instance, he may have passed on some
informal matter that doesn't amount
TO anything, and a long time after
wards another judge may have tried
the case on the merits; he ought not
to be disqualified from sitting on an
appeal on the merits. Then, again, it
permits the Legislature to add other
causes of disqualification In case any
other causes should be found desira-
hle. so that We may not have to go
to Congress again upon that subject.
Public Property.
| Section Q amends section 81 with
reference to public property, in sew
eral respects. In the first place, it
provides that the President may re-
| has been taken either by order of the
President or by order of the Governor
for Federal purposes. If we wish
some of the military reservations to be
restored, it may be that authority of
this nature will be required. 1t is at
least uncertain at the present time
whether such property may be re-
stored without such authority. During
my recent visit in Washington, it was
| determined that a number of these
pieces of property should be restored.
1t is further provided that the title
to public property in use or required
by the Territory for public purposes
| may be transferred to the Territory
by the President. | think no one will
question that this is highly desirable.
We have spent little over $3,000,000
out of loan funds, besides considerable
out of current revenues, for public i'm,
provements during the period of Ter
,ritorial government. A private person
would hardly make such expenditures
on land belonging to another. The
analogy is not quite complete, because
we would not expect the Federal Gov
eminent to pursue the course that n
private party might, of bringing an
action to get the land back after we
had improved it for him; but the dan
ger is not wholly wanting.
There are two situations: first, as to
property, that is. improvements which
We have made before Territorial gov
eminent, and, secondly, improvements
which we have made subsequently.
There is no reason why the Federal
Government may not take improve
ments which we have made prior to
Territorial government, just as well as
land which we had prior to Terrific
rial government. AS matter of fact,
it has taken many improvements; 1T
has taken the barracks lot, with the
} buildings on it, erected by the Hawai-
, ian Government; it has taken other
property-customs house, postoflice
building, and so on.
Now, take the case of property i'm
; proved since the Territorial Govern
ment-you say the Federal Govern
, ment would never do such thing as
to take property that we have Nm
proved with Territorial money which
we have perhaps borrowed and for
e which we have issued bonds. Are you
l sure of that' 1t probable would moi
; do it directly, but there may be dan
!. ger of its doing it, indirectly. There
r La