Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1916-10-04

/ by Tie police under orders from She
riff Rose.
The two men, Kalema and, Sam Hall
stead. were arrested this morning.
and after finding he could not see.
them. Attorney Breckons wrote let
ter to the sheriff quoting from the.
supreme court decision in the Craig
labor-recruiting case. to sustain his.
coHtention that the police have no.
right to bar him from his clients.
! The letter is as follows:
my Dear Mr.. Rose: On behalf Of.
the friends Of KalerBa and Sam Hal,
stead. two men who were arrested.
this morning by the police, Idesiresto'
enter q most vigorous protest. was
Iemployed by these friends to repre-
tsent the two men, and requested from
you permission to speak to them. +
found that no charge had been lodged
against them, but they were being.
held for Investigation. further.
ascertained, on reliable authority,
that attorneys, employed by the ship
ping interests In Honolulu we're af-
forded every opportunity of convers-l
| ing with the men. Up to the present
writing / have not been able to see
them. Notwithstanding the fact that l.
have been employed by their friends
to represent them
1T Is needless for me to comment,
! in my own language, on the unfair
ness of these methods. I cannot do
better than to quote the Language EN-
ployed by the supreme court of the
territory in the Craig case In that
case, where petition for writ .of.
ifabeas eorpus had been filed by
Craig on behalf OF certain other per
sons. It was alleged that 1t VAS
r. impossible 10 obtain the sigma
lures or oaths Of said parties to
| "a petition OF a like nature IN their
sewn behalf, they having been de-
MED by the hereinafter named
Julius ". Asch (acting under the
Instruction, as petitioner is in
formed and believes and upon
snch information and belief all.
leges, OF John w. Cathcart, at
torney for the City and County of
Honolulu the privilege or con- !
sulting counsel engaged to repre- :
sent them or the right to affix
their signatures to apetition pre-
pared In their behalf directed to
the ( supreme court of Hawaii,
{ praying their liberty, which said
petition SO prepared said parties
were and are willing and DESTROYS I
of, signing and having presented .
! to the said supreme court $50
Said the supreme court In passing
on this question l.. - 80 -
The truth of this assertion was
not denied IN the return or in any
of the evidence adduced. On the
contrary il was attempted to be
justified at the closing argument
While no specific relief is ask
ed or Us in this respect we deem
1t appropriate to express: our I'M
Qualified disapproval Of the pro-
cedure complained OF. One of the
fundamental rights of every. eiti. -
zen is that of being represented
by Counsel in judicial proceed
ings, and in this Instance 1t is z
immaterial whether the request
for employment of counsel orig
mated with the petitioners them !
selves or with some one else in 4
their behalf, Impediments to the
free exercise of this right by per.
SONS In the situation in which q
these petitioners found them
selves are intolerable.S %ts$
In view Of this language from our
supreme court, I have no hesitation
m condemning the action taken tby
you as being. not only unfair. but ex-
Etremely high,handed. The men in
question may be guilty of some Of
tense. but they have the right to coun:
sci, and their friends. have the right
to employ counsel Cor them. As the
supreme court has so well said: I'm
pedfments to the free exercise of this
right are intolerable.'" a.,