Polynesian., 1845-03-22

the chances of a favorable verdict for the
alien would be as five to one, because it has
been found that the disproportion of names
in the jury box, of aliens and naturalized
subjects, is even greater than this. IF to
this it is further objected that in time the
latter may greatly increase, it is also appa-
rent thatjhc parties litigant would increase
in a corresponding ratio among that class.
and thus the relative position of interests be
kept the same.
The law draws another distinction be-
tween the Two classes, natives and forcicn-
crs; on juries, the former are allowed 25
cts. per day; the latter 81, and this sum
has always been paid to naturaIized subjects.
on the ground of the distinction evidently
designed by the law. between the relative
value OF time to the two classes. 4 natural
izcd subject Is certainly equally as capable
of a profitable employment of his time after
as before he his olloyi,rco
ana Is equally upon a par, in every respect
that makes a man, with his former asso-
GATES.
we VIII continue the case still further.
Two naturalizcd subjects 20 to law. If Mr..
Brown's Interpretation of the statute is cor
rect, they must carry their case before 10
natives, and the proceedings be carried ON
through the imperfect medium of transla-
tons, to the great consuming of time. and
inconvenience of all parties. The laws are
designed for equity and Justice, both of
which might be imperfectly aswered, by a
case which involves principles and local
knowledge familiar only to those who have
been educated in civilized countries, being
brought before jurymen, who, though per-
tectly trustworthy in matters within their
own compass, cannot be expected to mani
fest intuitively the ideas and powers which
result only from education in a highly civili-
zed state. If such a course should be in
sisted on, with equal propriety could the
Judge put Chinese or New Zcalanders upon
4 case between EngliShmen or Americans.
All the parties would be foreigners, and the
way anu uiihCuuy vi translation WOUlu BE-
no greater in one case than the other, but in
either the real spirit of accommodation in
the law would be altogether defeated. This
subject could be much enlarged upon, but
we have said sufficient perhaps to convince
men who look more to the accomplishment
OF the ultimate OBJ iects of the statute, than
I" a bubble about words, raised for the
sake of an objection and to ~perplex the pub
lie mind with questions foreign to the purpo-
ses of Justice, that the word foreigners"
IN its common Specification, embraces that
class which Mr.. Brown is so DESTROYS of
excluding; that such is the purport of the
statute, and that these views not only arree
with each other, but in no other way can
justice he so speedily and impartially admin
istered under the present Arrangement of
the courts. Consequently there is nothing,
as Mr.. Brown asserts, in the decision of the
court, contrary to the Hawaiian law, to the
law OF the civilized world, and to common
sense.
II those who adopt his views find it impos-
s'blc to reconcile "forcigncr' with a natu-
rallzcd subject, we would ask them by what
process they can make mattress of them, or
persons born mithn the country; these dis
t'nctions being the only ones the statute add
ml's. Failing to do the latter, and protest
ing against the former, naturalizcd subjects
might possibly find themselves in tle pleas