Commission the record in a suit by said Hilbert against one J. Mosner, brought and concluded in the court of the first instance, District of Tondo, for the purpose of considering the legality and propriety of the imposition therein of an attorney's fee, taxed against the plaintiff, amounting to $624:

On motion of Commissioner Ide, it was resolved that the United States Philippine Commission has no judicial powers, and has no jurisdiction to consider the petition for writ of certiorari as filed, but that, in view of the duty of the Commission to enact laws providing for a code of civil procedure and the organization of civil courts, and in view of its power to appoint and remove judges, it is proper for the Commission to investigate this question of alleged extortion under the forms of law, and, therefore, the Judge of the First Instance for the District of Tondo, in which Court these costs have been imposed, shall be invited to come before the Commission to make a statement concerning the case.

[Extract from Minutes of Proceedings. September 29, 1900.]

The Judge of First Instance for the District of Tondo, having appeared before the Commission in response to an invitation issued in accordance with resolutions of yesterday's meeting, and produced an official copy of all proceedings in case of Hilbert vs. Mosner, and having made a statement, the Commission reaches the conclusion that it is not a case calling for any action on its part in the matter of the removal of the Judge, for the reason that the Judge has merely followed a vicious custom which seems to prevail at the bar, and has depended on evidence supported by the report of an American lawyer-tending to establish a false standard of American fees, of which the Judge can reasonably have had no other knowledge, and for the further reason that the Commission has now under consideration the early reorganization of the judiciary and the enforcement of discipline among members of the bar.

[Extracts from Minutes of Proceedings. October 1, 1900.]

Commissioner Ide reports that John G. Hvoslef, the attorney and solicitor in whose behalf the fee complained of in the petition of Christian Henry Hilbert, heretofore filed with the Commission, was taxed, has applied to him seeking the advice of the Commission as to the proper course for him to pursue in the matter of the fee, and stating that he imposed a fee larger than he would have charged his own client for the same services, had their been no liability on the part of the plaintiff to pay same, following in that respect what he understood to be the Spanish custom, but that he wished to conform to the views of the Commission with respect to the fee which he should charge. On motion of Commissioner Ide it was resolved that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Commission to fix the fee of said Hvoslef in this case, or to entertain any petition for a review of the proceedings; but that, if said Hvoslef desires the opinion of the Commission upon the proper fee to be charged in such case with a view to

determining his future action in the matter, the Commission considers that the proper fee in this case should certainly not have exceeded fifteen per cent. of the amount actually charged.

QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF LAWS AND RESOLUTIONS.

[Extract from Minutes of Proceedings, October 24, 1900.]

On motion of Commissioner Moses, resolved that a pamphlet in an edition of fifteen hundred copies be issued quarterly containing in English and Spanish the laws passed by the Commission, and such other material as may be designated for publication by the Commission, such pamphlet to be entitled: "Public Laws and Resolutions passed by the United States Philippine Commission during the Quarter Ending...

SUSPENSION OF JUDGE MAJARREIS.

[Extract from Minutes of Proceedings, December 6, 1900.]

Whereas, the Honorable Don Antonio Majarreis del Rosario, Judge of the Court of First Instance of the District of Binondo, was suspended from office by the Military Governor on August 10th, last, for alleged misconduct in making an order in an executive action instituted in said court by Don Ricardo Regidor, against Mr. George Hartman, by virtue of which order, an attachment was ordered levied on the property of the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank, in the sum of $36,000.00, Mexican; and

Whereas, the said Judge Majarreis del Rosario has filed with the Commission a petition praying that he may be heard in his own defense, and be reinstated, or removed, as justice may require;

RESOLVED, that Monday, the 17th day of December, instant, be set apart for hearing the charges against the said Judge Majarreis del Rosario and his defense, and that notice of such hearing be given to the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank, the said Judge Don Majarreis del Rosario, the said Don Ricardo Regidor and George Hartman, and the Attorney General of the Philippine Islands; that the forenoon of said day be allowed for the prosecution, or those interested in the removal of the said Judge, and that the afternoon thereof be allowed to the said judge; that the copies of all the documents filed with the Military Governor as the basis for said suspension, and of the application by the said Judge for hearing before the Commission, now on file with the Secretary of the Commission, be available for the inspection and use of all said parties, at the office of the Secretary, at all proper hours, before said day, and be made the basis of a hearing, together with such further facts as shall be adduced; that at the same time, the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank be requested to show cause why the restriction heretofore imposed by military order upon the progress of litigation between said Bank and Jurado & Co. in all its forms should not be removed, and said litigation proceed with the utmost dispatch to final determination; that the hearing commence at 9:00 o'clock the morning of said day and be public.

[Extract from Minutes of Proceedings January 5, 1901.]

THE UNITED STATES PHILIPPINE COMMISSION.

IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OF HONORABLE ANTONIO MAJARREIS DEL ROSARIO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE DISTRICT OF BINONDO.

DECISION.

For a considerable period prior to the 10th day of August, 1900, the Honorable Antonio Majarreis del Rosario had been Judge of the Court of First Instance of the district of Binondo, under an appointment from the Military Governor, and, on the date named, was still exercising the duties of that office. On that day, there was issued from the office of the Military Governor, and delivered to Judge Majarreis, an order informing him, among other things,

"That you have this day been suspended from office as the Judge of the Court of First Instance of the district of Binindo

You will at once enter this order upon the records of your court and thereafter will perform no duties whatsoever incident to said office until further investigation and final decision is reached."

Since that date the Judge has ceased to act in his official capacity. On the 1st of September, that portion of the executive authority which relates to appointments to judicial positions, and removals from such positions, was transferred from the Military Governor to the United States Philippine Commission by virtue of the instructions of the President of the United States to the Commission. In the latter part of October, Judge Majarreis made a written application to the Commission wherein he prayed that the cause of his suspension might be inquired into by the Commission, and that he might be reinstated in office, or be permanently removed, as justice should require. In response to that application, the Commission set apart the 17th day of December for the purpose of hearing the charges against Judge Majarreis and his defense, and caused due notice of the time of hearing to be given to the said Judge, the Attorney General of the Philippine Islands, and to all the parties interested in the litigation in which the alleged misconduct of the Judge was charged to have occurred. On the day named, the Judge, with counsel, appeared, as well as the Attorney General of the Islands, and the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank, the complainant in the original proceedings under which the suspension was ordered, and members of the firm of Jurado & Co., which firm was a party to the original litigation out of which grew the transaction under consideration. Two other persons, George Hartman and Ricardo Regidor, to whom notice of hearing had been ordered to be given, did not appear, Hartman having deceased early in the year 1900, and Ricardo Regidor having departed for Spain prior to the issuance of the order of notice. On the day fixed, and on the following day, the parties who appeared were fully heard, and the facts herein stated are based mainly upon those shown by the record or stated personally to the Commission by Judge Majarreis. They are in substance as follows:

On the 25th day of November, 1884, by public instrument executed before a notary public, George Hartman purchased from the firm of Jurado & Co., then doing business in Manila, the store known as "El Siglo XIX," for $40,000.00, which he undertook to pay in twenty months, at the rate of $2,000.00 per month, with interest thereon at

the rate of eight per cent. per annum. On the 10th day of February, 1885, Hartman, having already paid $4,000.00 towards the consideration of his purchase, sold the same store to Charles I. Barnes, as agent of the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, by public instrument executed before a notary public, wherein Barnes undertook, as agent for the bank, that, in addition to a certain sum then paid to Hartman, it would pay the $36,000.00 remaining upon the purchase money, to Jurado & Co., but that instrument likewise provided that the bank might apply that sum in liquidation of the claims which it was alleged to have against the firm of Jurado & Co. But prior to the date of the purchase of the store by Barnes, as agent for the bank, to wit, on the 6th day of February, 1885, Jurado & Co., by an act of conciliation celebrated before the Court of First Instance of Binondo on that date, assigned to Matias Saenz de Vismanos, the credit against Hartman (nominally to the amount of $40,000.00, actually $36,000.00, by reason of the payment that had been made them), as security for the payment of an alleged debt of $13,907.00 due to one Mrs. Baura. Ten days later, that is, on February 16, 1885, Vismanos, owner of the said credit of $36,000.00, by public instrument executed before a notary public, assigned the same credit to one L. Fernandez. Shortly afterwards, Fernandez permitted Jurado & Co. to include the said credit of $36,000.00 as an item of damage against the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank, in an action in favor of that firm against said bank, which action is still pending; but it does not appear that there was any formal transfer of the credit by a public instrument before a notary public, from Fernandez to Jurado & Co. On the 28th day of August, 1889, Fernandez, who still, so far as the public record disclosed, was the owner of the credit of $36,000.00, by a public instrument before a notary public, transferred that credit to Ricardo Regidor, who was a member of the firm of Jurado & Co. Upon this state of facts, Ricardo Regidor claimed to be the owner of the credit of $36,000.00, and it was the duty of the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank to pay that sum to him, unless it could establish a legal defense to the claim; but it did not appear that either Regidor or any one else, from the year 1885 down to the present time, made any attempt to enforce that claim, except so far as that subject is involved in the general litigation which had been going on during that period, between the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank and Jurado & Co., until the institution of the proceedings next hereinafter stated.

On the 15th day of May, 1900, Regidor instituted an executive action in the Court of First Instance of the district of Binondo against George Hartman, for the recovery of the $36,000.00 still remaining unpaid upon the purchase price of the store sold by Jurado & Co. on the 25th day of November, 1884, to George Hartman, together with interest at the rate of eight per cent. per annum from November 25, 1884. Hartman was not in the Philippine Islands at that time, and had not been for many years. He died early in the year 1900, but whether before or after the institution of this executive action did not appear. Judgment was rendered by Judge Majarreis in that executive action, against Hartman, for the amount of $36,000.00 and interest, and execution therefor was issued against the property of Hartman. No property of Hartman being found, Regidor thereupon presented to the court in which the executive action was pending, and over which Judge Majarreis was presiding, a petition stating in substance, that, by virtue of the facts herein before stated, a credit of $36,000.00 belonging to Hartman, and to be paid to Jurado & Co.,

remained in the possession of the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank, by reason of which he prayed that execution might be issued against the bank for the said sum of money. On the 9th day of June, 1900, Judge Majarreis addressed a communication to the bank, ordering it to hold the sum of $36,000.00 in its hands of the property or credit of Hartman, subject to the decision of the court in said action against Hartman, and, upon the 13th day of June, the bank, in writing, replied, informing the court that it had in its hands no funds belong ing to said Hartman and therefore could not hold the same subject to the action of the court. On the 19th day of June, the court directed another communication to be addressed to the bank, different in form, but not in substance, from the former one, and received a reply from the bank in effect like the former one. No summons or citation of any kind was served upon the bank, nor any statement of a time and place where it could be heard. On the 3d day of August, Regidor filed in court a petition praying that requisition be made upon the bank for the $36,000.00 above referred to. The effect of the official communications from the Judge to the bank, made on June 9th and 19th, was to embargo or garnish the credits or funds of Hartman in the hands of the bank, if such credits or funds were actually in its hands. They constituted an attachment by garnishee process, as known in English or American law, but had no other effect. On the 4th day of August, Judge Majarreis issued an order providing, among other things, as follows:

"No proof having been presented by the agent of the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank of the payment of $36,000.00 (pesos) which the bank undertook to make in the name of Mr. George Hartman as part of the price of the store styled "Siglo XIX," and not having made opposition (as attorney-in-fact of the said Hartman, which character it has under Clause 7 of the written instrument presented) to the execution issued nor to the judgment rendered in this case, published in the numbers of the newspapers which were annexed to the petition to which reference is made, let the amount embargoed be attached by the Actuary to that end presenting himself in the offices of the said banking establishment, and let requisition to that effect be made upon the agent together with the presentation of the written agreement for the delivery of said sum;"

And amplifying the embargo so as to cover the interest on $36,000.00 from the 25th day of November, 1884. Thereupon the clerk of the court proceeded to the bank and demanded immediate payment of the sum of $36,000.00 to which demand the agent of the bank replied, that the bank had received no money from Hartman, and had no funds or property belonging to him with which to make the said payment, and for that reason was unable to pay the sum demanded, reserving the right to make use of such recourses as the law furnished, the banking establishment not having been heard or defeated in the suit against Hartman. Thereupon, upon the 9th of August, in response to another petition by Regidor, Judge Majarreis issued a decree, wherein he recited the facts herein before stated in relation to the credit for $36,000.00 and the various transfers thereof, and the rendition of the judgment against Hartman, and the requisition before made upon the bank, and the reply of the bank as above set forth, and that Regidor requested that the allegations of the bank be disregarded and execution be levied for the amount of $36,000.00, without any excuse or protest whatever, and that,

"The bank not having made proof of having paid the said sum, its