The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1910-07-08
GRAND JURY IS
CONTEMPTUOUS
In Its Final Report Doesn't Even
Mention City Attorney
Cathcart.
GIVES OPINION PRIVATELY
Bulletin Only One That lndiCts
the Legal Adviser Of
Honolulu.
GIVES OPINION PRIVATELY
CFrom thursdays Advertiser.l

tOrlal grand jury Whlcn was nied yes
terday afternoon with Judge Cooper,
notwithstanding the expressed expeeta-
tons of the Calf, which is the warm
friend of the above-named official, In
fact, neither Mr.. Cathcart nor his dep
uty, Fred Milverton, were even re-
ferred to in the report. The grand jury
was merciful, or, perhaps it might bet
ter be said, was mercilessly contemptu-
Gus.
1t remains, therefore, that nobody has
indicted the city attorneys department
except the Bulletin; nobody but the
Bulletin has expressed any conviction
that the grand jury would find any rea-
son for expressing criticism of Mr.. Cath
cart g Office; only the particular friend
of Messrs. Cathcart and Milverton has
flown to the defense when there has
been no charge to repel. The Bulletin,
in it's first edition yesterday, predicated
the final report of the grand jury, ex-
pressing the belief that the inquisitors
would roast the office Of the city attor.
ney. And the grand jury did not even
mention that office. There was nothing
said in the final report criticizing the
attitude of Mr.. Cathcart and Mr.. Mil.
verton in the Lane case; nothing OK.
pressing the disgust of the grand jury
at the lack of assistance furnished the
body by the attorneys of the city and
county; nothing referring to the failure
to prosecute iolations of the speed or.
dinance; nothing thet might by any
possibility be construed as rejecting on
Mr.. Cathcart ard Mr.. Milverton for
their attitude toward Joe Leal and the
other gamblers. The grand jury did not
even criticize Nj. Cathcsft for his lack
of courtesy toward the grand jury and
its witnesses. The grand jury did not
make the statement that LOrrin An.
drews was recently called before it, not
as a lawyer, but as witness. Nh.
Cathcart's violent behavior on that oc.
casion was not mentioned; neither was
the fact that he Was yesterday morning
denominated as an unqualified liar by
the foreman and other members of the
grand jury.
Quiet Contempt.
The grand jury's attitude, as ex.
pressed by some of its members after
they had been discharged, was simply
that of qriet contempt. They refused
to recognize the existence of the city
and county attorney. "Why," asked
ore of them, "should we bring our.
selves down to his lie, Il by calling
names9"
Nor is it true, as the Rulletin stated,
that at the morning SC sion yesterday
forenoon Foreman MeStoeker went into
the grand jury room with bulky docu-
ment, "presumcd to be the lorg-await-
ed report" The report was not writ
ten, or even conceived, until, during
the morning session, the motion was
made that a committee of five be ap-
pointed to draft final report. This
motion was carried and a committee
was appointed, which, after the close
of the morning session, drew up the
final report, which wa presented to
the whole body in the afternoon and
adopted without dissent. The seven
column headline in the aftern DON pub
LEGATION, which stated that they were
mot all agreed on grand jury report, f"
was absolutely without foundation.
There was never = vote taken in the
grand jury room when the grand jurors
were not unanimous. There was never
any disagreement of any kind what
ever. The grand jurors worked in har-
mony at all times and were even har-
mOnious in their contemptuous disre-
gard of the city attorney'l Office in
their fna' report.
Opinion Verbally Expressed.
It is true that at the morning session
yesterday the question was raised as to
whether or not the grand jury in its
report should express its OF MON of the
services" rendered by tie city attor-
ney's department But it is also true
that, after ample discussion, the grand
jurors decided that they could not de-
scend to the level of using billingsgate.
They could not, as gentlemen express
their real opinions, so they decided
that the most dignifed thing to do
would be to ignore Mr.. Cathcart and
Mr.. Milverton altogether.
But they did not altogether relipquisR
their right to express their real beliefs.
They told Mr.. Milverton, who was pres
emit, what they thought of Mr.. Cathcart.
Foreman McStockeT, addressing Mr..
Milverton, stated that he was proud of
two facts: one that he was foreman Of
the grand jury, the other that he was
friend of Lorrin A. Thurston.
But, he said, that had nothing to do
with his actions as q grand juryman.
AS TO Mr.. catheart, the city and county
attorney is a liar Of the first water.
But the city attorney was not men.
toned in the report, tho grand jury
men expressing the belief that he was
beneath their notice.
Bride Evidence Too Vague.
The report Of the grand jury deals
merely with routine matters, except for
the reference 10 the aFuertions Of Super
visor Aylett, concerning which they
state that tho stories told ara 70 con.
Trajectory a. 20 preclude any action by
tho inQuiallOrs.
Judge Cooper received the report and
discharged the grand jury. ne laanked
thea Tor their work, buf exhibited no