Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-01-19
BAR ASSOCIATION
|. FAVORS APPEAL
|. TO CIRCUIT COURT
Members Are Divided, How
ever, 7 Out of 19 Preferring
Final Jurisdiction Here

Though the opinion of those pres
ent was divided, the majority vote
taken at yesterday afternoons meet
ing of the Bar Association of Hawaii
favored the judiciary reform bill in
congress as now amended by the SEN
ate, permitting appeals from the su-
preme court of the territory to the
ninth circuit court of appeals at San
Francisco. BY vote of IL to Z,
President c. r. Hemenway not voting.
the association authorized the des-
patch of the following wireless to
Senator Culberson, chairman of the
senate judiciary committee:
Bar Association urges retention
present appeals supreme court, falling
which urges appeal ninth circuit court
Of appeal and that pending cases on
appeal be unaffected by bill"
This motion was offered by Judge
&c. w. Ashford and seconded by r. w.
Breckons, after. another motion rec
tommending that the Hawaiian su-
preme court be made the last resort
had been presented by D. L. Withing-
ton and lost by vote of to II. An
effort was made to declare unani-
nous ballot, thus presenting a solid
front to congress, but the attempt was
baked by j. P. Magoon. Judge An
tonic Perry and one or two others of
the minority, who steadfastly refused
to yield. Sir. ~ -..=> ~
With Judge Perry and Magoon on
the minority were ID, l. Wilmington,
Judge A. A. Wilder, Judge. De Bolt
and Judge Sanford B. Dole. They
took the stand that the territorial
court is older than the California
bench, and that in learning and judi
cial position it is on parity with
the California bench. Moreover, they
said, it has far. better knowledge of
Hawaiian affairs and laws than the
mainland jurists could possibly have.
Chief Justice A. G. NJ Robertson,
while unable to attend the meeting,
sent a letter in which he epitomized
the position to- the proposed right of
appeal to the ninth circuit court. He
was against the right of appeal to the
United States supreme court.
THE best argument in favor of the
law allowing appeals to the supreme
court was that it gave litigants, in
Sd6CSa lu1OIN1iiSt PoyOO lAOtO JIG
to have the opinion of
the highest and abiest court I'm the
land" he wrote. @That reason would
not apply to the newly proposed right
of appeal.
Il can see nd advantage in the pro-
posed plan Of allowing an appeal from
one court consisting of three judges
to another court consisting of like
number of judges. Under the pro-
posed plan 1t wbuId be possible for the
opinions of I'VE judges to be over
ruled by those of two judges. That
is to say, if the judgment or decree
of circuit court or Judge should be
sustained by unanimous supreme
court, the result upon appeal might
be the reversal by a divided court IL
the circuit court of appeals. 1t is to
be remembered also that in the court
Of appeals district judges, as well as
circuit judges, may sit"
Among those who favor the priyi-
lege of appeals to the ninth appellate
circuit and spike in its behalf were
Ex- Governor w. F. Frear, Judge c.
w. Ashford, r. W. Breckons, c. H.
Olson, r. w. Anderson, l. ]. Warren
and W. o. Smith.
- r.