The Hawaiian gazette., 1910-05-13


question as to why no decision has
been rendered and will also suggest
your remedy which, If / may be per
mitted to express nonjudicial opinion,
lies in Boundary or other court proceed
ings and not in correspondence, With
out intending disrespeet to your depart |
ment let me say that I deprecate the /
latter method of proceeding in the case
and that trust Che fact Of my having |
replied 20 your letter viii not be con- |
strued by you to be an acknowledge |
ment on my part Of accountability in !
the way which you have taken for |
/ granted.
elm future transactions regarding
this case | must leave you to the forum
I having jurisdiction, where the proceed |
ings may be regular and orderly and
where insolence may be discouraged and
decorum enforced.
''Trusting that you will agree with
me as to impropriety of further CORE
spondence regarding this phase of the
case between either litigant and my.
self, I am, respectfully yours,
"CHARBES f. PARSONS,
Boundary Commissioner Fourth
Circuit. Z"
i The Hilo Tribune yesterday published
an expurgaged letter from the deputy
encouragement to Judge Parsons
Instead of publishing the Tribune's
/, abbreviation, The Advertiser here gives
the full text of the letter, which gives
! the matter a decidedly different slant.
1t is as follows:
Honorable Charles +. Parsons, Bound
4 airy Commissioner for the Fourth Cir
cult, Hilo, Hawaii.
f'Dear Sir:-Your letter of April
18th was duly received by me and not
} withstanding your suggestion that fur
4 Their correspondence regarding the
> boundary proceedings therein mention
l ed would be an improperly as between
5 either litigant and yourself, take the
= liberty of replying for reasons which 1
S think will, upon reflection, appeal to
! you as sound,
: Gin the first place, desire to ex-
press my very keen regret that The
! Advertiser of this city gave out pur-
ported interview with me on this sub
/ iect and made the statements to which
. you allude in your letter of April 18th.
I "I regret it most of all because it
! reflects, in some degree, upon my chief,
! Judge Lindsay, placing him through
I me in the position of criticizing an of
fetal of this Territory in a somewhat
hasty and summary manner. l desire
a to state that whatever blame should
attach to this episode should 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 l personally believe to be the
facts in regard to the Pepeekeo boun-
Diary dispute, my belief being founded
| "a, nF
those who should have first hand
. knowledge of the matter.
''I understand that on or about the
: month of October, 1906, the case was
. submitted finally. 1t is certainly true
that the Territory absolutely rested
u indeed, both sides technically Crested -
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
Q of law. This, of course, he had a per-
II 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 brief and did not propose to do
u so but rested its case solely upon the
/ evidence and showing made before the
e. boundary commissioner; Mr.. MilvertoI
lel further stated that if Mr. Smith desired
4 to file brief he might do so, but that
r the Territory neither desired nor in
e tended to file any brief.
"Some time later Mr.. Milvertor
= was again in Hilo, and desiring to learn
- why a finding had not been returned
!; approached you as boundary commits
sioner, to learn the reason therefor
The reply he received was substantially
70 the reply have received, viz: that the
10 last entry in the record was that coun
sci should be given time to file briefs,
q and no briefs having been fled, nj
l. finding could properly be returned Mr.
u Milverton again made it plain that the
n Territory did not desire and had mo-
L at any time desired to file brief.
e. long period of time-years, in itera
81 truth-have passed since this last ac
D. ton by Mr. Milverton, and there hal
been no finding returned 1t seemed tt
J6 me quite obvious that the only cause
I'd for this delay was the failure on thu
r part of the attorney for the sugar com
Ie pany to file brief which he alon,
in desired to submit and which his negli
It. gence, alone, delayed from submission
i'd Therefore / wrote you to learn whel
s. the department could expect fna
ae finding in the said boundary dispute.
n "The last paragraph contains my ex
m cuse for replying to you in the fac
d. of your expressed reluctance to receiv
H. further communications. 1t seems t.
mr. me that there is nothing this depart
es ment can do except to request finding
a. We cannot continue the matter-w
wv rested our case about four years age
IN We have no further evidence to submit
~. and we have no brief to file and hay
he had no desire at any time to file
brief. There is no step we can tax
70 until some finding is made by you a
;s boundary commissioner. If the fndin
-, is adverse, then it will be possible 70
- us to take further legal steps, if W
h ,n feel justified in doing SO; if the fndin
~ is favorable, we naturally would no
ne proceed further. This is the attitud
~ of this Departmental I think tn
department as such cannot be criticize
for resorting to correspondence as tn
Ol- ttrbn1a r,at4ar 10 bIoo1raJ uandtuc, H.,