The Hawaiian gazette., 1910-05-13

your statement that you personally are
open to criticism for making them pos
sible, you are unwilling to make the
only roparation which can DO made OK
your own initiative. Respectfully.
"CHARLES +. PARSONS -
Lindsay Takes Hand.
Inlay 6, 1910.
+" Honorable Charles +. Parsons, Com
missioner of Boundaries for the
Fourth Judicial Circuit, Hilo, Ha-
wall.
f'Dear Sir:--I beg TO acknowledge
the receipt of your letter Of the end
inst, in which you say that you should
like to have the assistance of argu.
ment on the part of the Territory in
reply to the brief of counsel for the
PepeOkeo Sugar Company, in the mat
ter of the boundary Of Sections / and
of Kahua Second, filed April 90, 1910,
and that you have Of your own motion
entered an order, granting the Terri
tory thirty days from and after the
second day of May, A. ID. 1910, within
which to file ito brief. You also re-
quest that reconsider my expressed
intention to file no brief, al least TO
the extent of furnishing you with =
detailed statement of the Territory's
claims in the matter based upon the
evidence and with reference to the
claims of the Pepeekeo Sugar Company
set forth in tho brief of its counsel.
= regret to say that under the cir
oumstances of this case do not feel
that l should file n brief.
AS you are aware, this case was
tried some four years ago by Mr.. Mil
vertOn, WHO is no longer connected
with this office and no one in the of,
flee is sufficiently familiar with the
facts to write brief. Mr.. Hemenway
informs me that when you wee in
Honolulu in the fall of 1907, you told
him that the question involved were
merely questions of fact and that =
brief on the part of the Territory was
not required. This seems to nave been
the attitude of everyone connected
with this office.
GAS understand the matter at the
close of the hearing full argument was
made before you while the matter was
still fresh in your memory. You had
Just heard the evidence of witnesses
and examined much documentary evi-
denee which is not at present accessi-
BILE to me. The brief fled by Mr..
Smith is simply an argument on the
facts and l do not think it calls for n
reply. Very truly yours,
ALEXANDER LINDSAY, JR.,
attorney General, "
In reply to the judges urgent demand
to be cleared Of tho charge of having
been boundary commissioner in 1901
when in reality he was attorney for the
Pepeekeo Sugar Company, defendant in
the suit brought by the Territory, Mr.
Lymer writes to The Advertiser as fol-
lows;
"May 10, 1910.
"'To the Editor of The Advertiser
If you can find space for the following,
it win doubtless be appreciated by
Judge Parsons and his friends:
"'rhe account, published in The Ad-
vertiser of April Sth, of an interview
with me relative to the long pending
boundary dispute between the Terri
tory and the Pepeekeo Sugar Company
contains two misstatements of fact
which / desire to correct. In one para
graph it is stated;
:" Several years ago dispute arose
as to the boundary line of the
PepeeSeo plantation. The matter was
adjudicated by the boundary commits.
sion of which Judge Parsons was then
a member. The decision of the commits
sion was in favor of the sugar com,
pany There the matter rested
until 1906'
"And again:
90 No decision was ever rendered by
Judge Parsons before whom the case
was tried-the same Parsons who was
a member of the boundary commission
that awarded the lands to the sugar
company
"These statements, in so far as they
connect Judge Parsons with the first
boundary dispute, are incorrect. The
first adjudication of boundaries was
under Judge Lyman as boundary com.
missioner, before the appointment OF
Judge Parsons. The present suit sub,
mitted in 1906 was under Judge Par.
sons. Your reporter unintentionally
misquoted me in this connection. Yours
very truly,
"WILLIAM b. LYMER,
FDeDuty Aforementioned u