Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1912-04-05

nal cases disposed of by the District
Magistrate of Honolulu for the eight.
cen months ending December 81, 1910,
and this report shows LIZ criminal
cases disposed of during the last six
months of 1909, and 1850 cases dis.
posed of by the District Magistrate in
the year 1910. In the same report of
the Mayor which MIR. Field claims he
used in his investigation of this de.
partment Is a report by the Sheriff
Of the CITY and County of Honolulu,
showing disposition of 1856 criminal
cases for the year ending December
81. 1909, in the District of Honolulu
alone. and i,lS7 during the same pc
Rod in the whole City and County.
The Sheriff's report also shows for
the twelve months ending December
81, 1910. disposition of 3,O26 crimi.
nal cases I'm the district of Honolulu
alone, and 3,72i in the whole City and
County. The records of the District
Court of Honolulu show that for the
year ending December 81, 1911, there
was disposed of in that Court alone
ASH criminal cases.
Facts and Fields Error.
with this data actually in the pos
session of Mr.. Field as shown by his
statements. with the fact that the du-
~ of conducting all of these prosecu.
tions is placed upon this department
by law, with the fact that IL is mat.
ter of common knowledge that In the
District Court of Honolulu n deputy
of this department is constantly EN-.
t,1n IN
tions, with the fact that It is matter
Of common knowledge that in the
District Courts of the City and County
outside of the District of Honolulu
representative of this department Is
frequently required to conduct crimi-
nal prosecutions II is strange that Mr..
Field should make an error of ap.
proximately 700 per cent. relative to
the volume of criminal business con.
Quoted by our department.
In making my report as required by
law to the Attorney General and to
the Mayor, I embodied in It only
such cases as are tried in the Circuit
! Court, for the reason that data con.
corning the disposition of other crimi.
nal cases is always embodied either
in the report of the District Magis.
trate or in the report of the Sheriff.
Mainland Custom.
do not know what degree of fainil
iarity Mr.. Field has with the legal
procedure In vogue on the mainland.
! lie intimates that in cities, including
/ Memphis, the Police Court prosecu.
tons are undertaken by Deputy Sher'
IFS. In no city of the United States
of the size of Honolulu Is such prose.
cution rclegatcd to deputy sheriifs. II
is done by special prosecutors and
this is known to every one whose at.
tention has been called to the matter.
Mr.. Field says that he does not un.
derstand where ! got my information
relative to the legal machinery of
Shelby County and Memphis, Tenncs.
see. have obtained II from the stat
utes Of Tennessee and the charter OF
the City of Memphis. He ridicules
the idea of County Attorney of
Shelby County, but in his own report
! he refers to the prosecutor there as
the County Attorney Of Shelby Coun.
ty. although after reading my commu-
nication, stating how Tennessee was
divided into districts under Attorney
1 Generals, he now calls the prosecutor
there the District Attorney General,
and when drawing up his report
wherein he designates the Tennessee
Prosecuting Officer as the Attorney of
Shelby County, he had In his posses.
sion the letter from Mr.. Estes, the
District Attorney General, which lot.
ter he falsely stated to our department
that he had turned over to Mr.. Spald'
ing.
] have deemed II necessary to reply
publicly to Mr. Fields published re.
port. will, however, submit to the
Chamber of Commerce the facts and
figures which show how misleading
Mr.. Fields report is as to my office,
and showing that It was drawn reck
lessly and without due consideration
of the facts. expecting. at the hands
of the Chamber of Commerce fair and
impartial treatment.
Very truly yours,
JNO. w. CATHCART,
City and County Attorney of the
City and County of Honolulu.
i IInnnlulu Anril A 10