The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1910-05-11


granted.
"In future transactions regarding
this ease / must leave YOU to the forum
having jurisdiction, where the proceed
Ings may he regular and orderly and
where insolcuce may be discouraged and
decorum enforced.
"Trustiug that YOU Will agree. with
NE a. to improperly of further CORE
spondence regarding this phase Of the
case between either litigant and nv
self I am, respectfully yours.
s'CHARLES F. PARSONS.
d" Boundary Commissioner Fourth
Circuit. -
The Hilo Tribune yesterday published
an expurgaged letter from the deputy
attorney general to Judge Parsons
Instead OF publishing the Tribune s
Authorization. The Advertiser here gives
the full text Of the letter, which gives
the matter a decidedly different slant,
1t is as follows:
" Honorable Charles F. Parsons. Bound
arv Commissioner for the Fourth Cir
cuit, Hilo, Hawaii.
Dear Sir:-Your letter of April
18th was duly received by me and not
withstanding your suggestion that fur
ther correspondence regarding the
boundary proceedings therein mention
ed would be an improperly as between
either Gtigant and yourself. | take the
liberty Of replying for reasons which
think will upon reflection, appeal to
Won as sound.
I'm the first place, I desire to ex-
press my very keen regret that The
Advertiser of this city gave out a pur-
ported interview with me on this sub
iect and made the statements to which
you allude in your letter of April 11th.
4 regret il most of all because it
reflects, in some degree. upon my chief,
Judge Lindsay, placing him through
me IN the position Of criticizing an of
fetal of this Territory in a somewhat
hasty and summary manner. | desire
to state that whatever blame should
attach to this episode shonld be borne
by me, and Judge Lindsay should be
eXonerated from any share in the mat
ter
" Having said this much. let me state
what | personally believe to be the
facts in regard to the Pepeekeo boun-
Diary dispute. my belief being founded
upon the unequivocal statements of
those who should have first hand
knowledge Of the matter.
Il understand that on or about the
month Of October, 1906. the case was
submitted finally. Il is certainly true
that the Territory absolutely rested
indeed. both sides technically rested.
as the record shows. Mr. Smith. rep
resenting the sugar company. after the
case was submitted requested time in
which to file brief upon some point
Of law. This. Of course. he had a per
feet right to do. But Mr.. Milverton.
at that time deputy attorney general
and representing the Territory, openly
stated that the Territory did not desire
to file a brief and did not propose to do
50 but rested its case solely upon the
evidence and showing made before the
boundary commissioner; Nh Milverton
further stated that if Mr.. Smith desired
to file 2 brief he might DO so, but that
the Territory neither desired nor in
tended to file any brief.
Some time later Mr. Milverton
was again in IIilo. and desiring to learn
why a finding had not been returned,
approached you as boundary commits
siouer. 10 learn the reason therefor.
The reply he received was substantially
he reply ! have received. viz: that the
last entry in the record was that 'coun
sci should be given time to file briefs,
and no briefs having been filed, no
finding could properly be returned. Mr..
Milycrton again made it plain that the
Territory did not desire and had not
at any time desired to file a brief. \
long period Of time-years, in literal