Hawaii Holomua, Volume III, Number 189, 15 ʻAukake 1894 — NEPOTISM. [ARTICLE]

NEPOTISM.

The Attornej-General to the Rescae. It will be reineinl*er€d tbat a few «ceks ago, Mr. E H. B*ilev of Wailako, Maai, wa« arrested on a cbarge of en,l*ezzleajent. Tbe » arrant w«» tmned by Judge Coj»p of Mak-iw «o, s.uinp ia tbe plaeo of Jadge Heleknnihi oī ■ Wailokn, disqu:tlifjed. and tb« | e.i'• w;.s set f r lt<- irii g on Sat-j urday tbe lltb instant Mr. V. , V. Asbfcrd appoared for tbe prosecation as atlorney for tbe eom- I pl.uninp «’ilnea» J. Gracla. Be- j fore Mr, AsLford Icft Honolnlu for Wailnkn, be received a noliee from the Attorney Gencral stating tbat tbe gor. rument declined to pnmeeole Mr. Ilailey and tl»at tbe pre>icnco of Mr Ashfor«l in Wai— j iuku was uniiecoss»ary. Tbis remark .ble nction on tbe rurt «>f tbe Attornev-Gcnerul bus created coasiclerabIe commcnt, and «a consider .it proper to poblic!y review tbc matter and sbow tbc partiality aml nepotism whieh appnrcntly gaide the steps of the meinl>ers of tbe "K«ptib liean government. ’ E H. Bxiiey i« managor of tbe Hawaiino Fniit aud Taro Corapauy, a oorpcration doing basiness in Waiiuku us miuiufactnrers of poi and taro-flonr. A number of taro-planters in West Maui are stockholdcrs in tbe coropany »ud contractors for supplving taro. Among them was oue, J. Kaanaaua, a Hawaiian who is au evtcnsivo taro-planter in Wailuku. This man heeame indebted to a cousiderab!e amount to a -ve»idunt u£-_WuiIiikn namml J. Gracia. He was unahle to pay bis debt aud au arrangement was mnffe with Mr. Bailey, tbe m&nager of tbo Hawaiian Fruit and T*ro Company to tbe efleot tbat be sbould pay to Gracia wbatever money should be dae to Kaanaana for the taro wbicb be acccrding io conlract bad to deliver to tho comp»ny. And ibat was done. The bigger poriion of tbe dobt was paid ofl in that manuer until only a halaneo of $166 remained dne. Tn Septembor 1893, Kaanaana deltvered saflioieut taro to the oompany, whieh was converted into cash, and Mr. Bailey had in bis possession tbe 8166 whieh was due to Gracia. At this time tbe company got iatc diffiou)tiea. The contract to supply the Leper Settlemeut witb poi, beretofore held by the Ha~ waiian Fruit aud Taro Co. ,waa giveu to other partiea and ihe eoneem found itself wiih iarge contracts for taro on hand aod oo raarket for poi or floar. Ar- ■ rangemeot8 were fio*Iiy made i wheteby the work waa continned for tbe account of ihe eoairaotors and th« compaoy apparently went oo nsbofore. Bat Omoia did .... „ ,. | . * Ta ;i * f » . ft|£ A ued to dan B*iley 81W». Sd of obteining tke moaey whioh Bai»d»ilted was io UIs pouoee * I' *.■ . * . . A I i obteiateT* «o whkh 1 T-~c issne. Hr. hia I

■ at least sis rvasoD8 wby he sbouW . deelin«. to prosecnt« tbe accn»e«l1 Mr. B»iley Uao bone5t «.an. j 2. He is the roanager of tbe comp*ny kod eanaoi be he!d individuallr gaiitv of eitbezzlcment. Tbe coirp*ny *hou!d be : arre»le»l. 3 He badn’t u»ed tbe mooey | in que*tion for bis own ose, but j for tbe use of the company. , 4. It woaldn't do at ali. 5. It is a perfect outrage. 6. I will be d if I will do it. For tbese *nd simil*r good reasons, tbe Attorney-General refuseJ to prosecnte Bailey. wbo oow is a free man —and Gracia basu't got his rooney. It was in vain for Mr. Asbford to read Section 1 of Cbapter XVIII, I. e. l«MrSmitb. The Chapter and Sectioo deal witl; embezzleuier.t "find read: If any p«rsoa *bo is entruste.l with. or. bas tbe posaeasion, eontroi, cast<xlv or keeping of u tbiug of vuluo. jf auolber, by tbe consent or acthority, direct or in- | direct of sncb other, witboul tbe f consent aud against tbe will of tLe owner. fraudnlently converts or di»jK>ses of the same, or attempts so to convert or dispose of the saine, to his owu use aud beneflt, or to tbo nse >»nd benefit cf anotl.er than the owoer or persc n entitl d tbereto, be is gnilty of embezzlenaent of sucb thing. The question in tbis rnntter is not at ali ia regard to Mr. Bailey's honesty. He is a man for whoni we bave the highest esteera, anel uobody wbo kuows him wifl believe that he intentioually bus defrauded Gracia or anybody else. Tbe qnestion at issue is the action of the attoroey general iu usin bis prerogutiveg to sbield a man who is his friend, his connection and what js yet more siguificant his partner in the Hawaiian Fruit and Taro Company. If the judge before when the facts were laid saw sufticient reason to issue a warrant, wby not leave it to that jndge or eveutaally to a jury to decide if Mr. Bailey was guilty or not? lf glaring injusiiee was done to Mr. B*iley bas be oot got his remedy under oor our laws m-» d«uiage ooH? Both Graciu and Asbford are meu of property and fully able to be beld responsib!e for their acts. Wedo not ihink tbat Mr. Smith bas done Mr. Bailey a service through his autocrutic action. He oow stauds as saved simply tbrough bis ‘ pull” witb tbe powers that be, he does uot stand acquitted of tbe charge in tbe eyes of his fe!low citizeus. It is well wortb hcre to remember the howl whieh aroae from the ranks 6f Mr. Smitb’s oliquo when Mr. C. W. Asbford, thea attorney-geueral, entered a nolle pros io the case of assault agaiost his fatber-in-law Mr. Bobertson. In tbat case tbo complaiuing witoess wasmt86ing, and it would have been impossible for the prosecntioa to mako out a eaae. In tbe case of Bailey, Mr. Smith has ohoeeo to sit as judge himself, has given an ex parte decisioo, and osed his prerogative as at torney geuerat to execute hia decision. Cun auythiog doriog the iimes of the monarchy be ahown eqoal to tbe rottenes8 aod eorruption. whieh now iafent every bntuch of the so-oalled republican govorument. And Mr. Gracia ean whistte for hln money. ~ .. ....• m *. '1'»_• 19IU flUy W uMu lOf M