Polynesian., 1844-11-23

the fact. The writer must have intended to
blind his readers by the boldness of the as
%sertion. On turning to the pages in question,
we find the facts exactly the reverse. The
letter of the 3lst. August did remain unan-
swercd, as will be seen. On the 4th. Sept,
the U. S. Commissioner addressed another
note to the Secretary, and in the reply to
that, on the 9th, Mr.. Judd writes that His
Majesty had been informed by him, that Mr..
Brown had addressed an official note to this
department on the same subject, to which
there had not as yet been allowed time to
reply. The note referred to was the one of
August 3Oth., to which, in a reply ofthc same
date, Mr.. Judd had also begged leave to re-
quest time to reply: SC.
lfthere is any contradiction in the para
graph referred to on page 10th, it is Mr..
Hooper that makes it and not Mr.. Judd, who
merely repeats Mr.. Hooper's opinion. Willie
upon this topic, we would observe, that to us
there seems to have arisen an unnecessary
misrepresentation on the part of the opponents
of Mr.. Judd. Both he and Mr.. Ricord testify
to the fact that Mr.. Hooper used language
to the following effect, in a conversation at
the Foreign Office, when only they were
present. "That his nominated jury would
be more likely to convict Wiley, than one
promiscuously drawn from the boxes, and
ne thought it ought on that account to be
more acceptable to the Government" Yet
the Friend does not hesitate to charge both
Mr.. Judd and Mr.. Ricord with uttering a
"paPable, Infamous untruth.." This is a
serious accusation, and subjects both the ed
itor of the Friend and publisher to an action
for libel. We would seriously ask of the
Editor, if he believes his readers will credit
him, when he accuses the Secretary of State
and the Attorney General of perjury ; for
that is the plain charge. And what are his
grounds ? Why, that Mr.. Hooper denies
that he wished to nominate a Jury for the
purpose of convicting Wiley. We GUu be-
iere Mr.. Hooper in this, and beg the Editor
of the Friend to read more attentively the
affidavit of Mr.. Ricord. VIVA, is its obvious
meaning ? To us it reads as follows; that
in the conversation that ensued between the
parties, relative to the respective merits of
the methods Of selecting jurymen, Mr.. Hoo
per, who had proposed men of known moral
worth for his jury, observed, that a jury like
that would be more likely to convict the &C
cused, thar one drawn promiscuously from
the ballot box. No one can doubt that he
meant, if he did not express it, If suiHv.-
And, from the nature of the conversation, it
is evident that he made this distinction on the
ground, that if the jury were chosen by lot,
Wiley might by chance have upon it, some
one or more, who, from ~prejudices, friend
ship, or any of the many motives which bias
human judgment, might be disposed to give
a verdict in his favor. But there would be
no such chance in the jury he selected, and
the government, on that account, ought to
approve of it. The impartiality of the jury
was not the question. 1t was one of law,
and the law prescribing a method which
might possibly give chances in Wiley S favor,
he was fully entitled to them. To this effect
was the Attorney Generals reply. Mr..
Hooper was not, nor has he ever been char
ged with wishing to appoint a jury to convict
Wiley. That he supposcs he has been is
evident from afidavits, and the idea has been
circulated throughout the community, giving
rise to no small degree of ill-will. +.
The Friend asks questions with triumphant