The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1912-04-05
FURTHER REPLY
CONTINUED from page oneJ

ty officers upon legal matters affect.
ing their offices.
Mr.. Field also overluoks the fact
that large proportion of the cases,
which he says are prosecuted by MIR.
Estes as attorney general for Shelby
county, are composed of what are
known as misdemeanors, such as VIC
Iations of the liquor law, carrying
concealed weapons and numerous
class OF offenses that are less than
I felonies, and that in the City and
County of Honolulu such offenses are
under the law prosecuted in the first
instance in the various district courts,
subject TO the right granted to every
defendant of appeal to a trial jury.
have not available, at present, any
figures showing the salaries and eX-
penses of the county attorney of
Shelby county, but taking Mr.. Fields
| figures as to the expenses of Mr.
Estes department being $4,000 per an.
mum, and adding to that the salaries
/ fixed by law of the city attorney and
the assistant city attorney of Mem
phis aggregating $4,000 per annum,
! It would seem the expenses in connec-
ton with the legal machinery of Shell
/ by county, exclusive of the salary and
expenses of the county attorney, and
exclusive of any office expenses Of.
the city attorney or of Mr.. Estes de-
partment, amounts to $14,6OO per an
mum.
The legal department of the City
and County of Honolulu performs all
of the functions carried on in Ten
nessee by three separate departments,
to-wit: the district prosecuting Off
Ger, known as the attorney general
for the district, the city attorney and
the county attorney. The duties of
our department are not confined
merely to the prosecution of criminal
cases before juries, but the charter
of the City and County of Honolulu
specifically makes it my duty, not
only to conduct on behalf of the peo-
| pie all prosecutions in the city and
county for offenses against the laws
of the Territory of Hawaii, but also to
prosecute for all violations of city and
county ordinances and to conduct all
civil cases in which the city and coun-
ty is interested In addition to this
the law requires this department to
prosecute violations of the regula-
tons of the Territorial board of
health, and specifically provides for
the taking charge of criminal cases
before the district magistrates.
1t is also the duty of the city and
county attorney of Honolulu to give
opinions in writing to the city and
county officers on matters relating to
the duties of their respective offices,
and when required by the board of
supervisors or any members thereof
to draft ordinances for the city and
county, and generally to perform such
duties as are in Tennessee and ord
inarily on the mainland performed
either by the city attorney or by the
county attorney.
Mr.. Field attempts to excuse him
self for the error he has made as to
the number of cases conducted by
this department by claiming that the
discrepancy between 497 cases as
stated by him in his report and the
actual number, approximately 1000
was brought about by a reading of
report submitted by me to the ma
yor and embodied in the report of the
mayor to the Territorial Legislature.
My report, as a matter of fact, con
tains only a list of prosecutions in
the circuit court In the very report
Of the mayor from which Mr.. Field
claims he got his information, there
is found on the page Immediately fol
lowing my report synopsis of Grim
inal cases disposed of by the district
magistrate of Honolulu for the is
months ending December 81, 1910,
and this report shows 1777 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 Mr. Field claims he
used in his investigation Of this de-
partment, is report by the sheriff
of the City and County of Honolulu,
showing disposition of 1866 criminal
cases for the year ending December
81, 1909, in the district Of Honolulu
alone, and 41S7 during the same Pc
riod in the whole city and county,
The sheriff's report also shows for the
~ months ending December 81, 1910,
disposition of 1926 criminal cases in
the district of Honolulu alone, and
1924 in the whole city and county
The records Of the district court Of
Honolulu show that for the year end