The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1859-03-03

% have been treated with kindness, and after their arnsa- -
Honolulu a not unfriendly Intercourse was kepe up
'n Tnex sp = 70 have considered. and perhaps not unrsssons.
C ~ by whom they had been arrested, imprisoned, ana
sentenced to Punishment, never 70 return uu.e. e." .ni =.
death, rather than the master, VINO ho ins nANN
The facts which have bees Detailed chow, however, oeyona :
dmbt. that the respondent has been guilty OF q marine o.
very grave character.
Several points in the evidence should not be
overlooked, as having q bearing on the merits OF
the case:
1.-THE libellant went on board the Yankee
willingly 9 happy to escape in any way from the
power of the Vigilance Committee.
2d.-When asked by the Captain of the Yam
kee. ON being brought ON board, whether he took
passage willingly or not, he replied in the at
frmative, or, at the most, gave an equivocal
answer, 90 that he had no choice in the matter
3d.-The arrangement alluded to, as having
been previously made with the Captain OF the
Yankee, may have been of a very different nature
from what the Judge assumes in his decision.
The arrangement if any, may have been simply
in regard to the payment of passage in case OF
G~allagher's consenting to obtain his liberty, by
taking passage in the bark.
Here are the main points in the case. Had
Gallagher stubbornly refused to go-had the
Captain forcibly compelled him to come on board,
and kept him there by forehead there been any
understanding between the Vigilance Committee
and Captain Smith to take him at all hazards,
with OF without his consent-the case would
have been changed. But neither of these points
appear to have been proven, but the very reverse.
Gallagher had ample opportunity to protest
both to those in charge of him on the tug, and
also to the Captain, against his Punishment; but
not a particle of evidence was brought forward
to show that he objected in the slightest manner
to the mode of escape opened for him. And
those who came passengers with him, and wit
messed the whole affair, were satisfied that he
fell in heartily with the arrangement, whatever
may have been his reasons for SO dong. That
part of the judges decision which assumes that
Gallagher was carried off by the Yankee against
his will is mere presumption, unsustained by the
evidence and by the well-known facts of the case.
When Captain Smith asked the libellant, if he
went willingly as a passenger,-on which point
the evidence appears to be clear, he shows that
he was aware of his responsibility as a shipmaster.
and only when satisfied that Gallagher went will
lingly, took him on board, the Vigilance Com
mittee, having by a previous understanding
with the master, become responsible for his pas
sage money.
Yet on this evidence, Judge Hoffman is satisfied
that some damages should be awarded against
the defendant. But in estimating the amount,
he says, a serious difficulty is encountered. In
his opinion only a small part of the damages due
should be given in the Marine Court
at is obvious that by far the greater part Of the wrongs
which the libelant has sustained, are matters over which an
Admiralty Court, having jurisdiction only Of marine torts, has
ssentence,' which fixed an iIeGaceable stigma on his name,
were matters occurring on land, and wholly beyond the jurisdic-
must look to the tribunals of the State of which he is a citizen
confined within its legal and constitutions limits, unaffected by
any considerations as to the ability of libellant to obtain justice
in any other FORM"
elevate the standing and character of the libellant.
as deserving of far greater damages than he can
expect in his court, is amusing. He assumes as
a fact that the libellant is known only as a per-
son of the highest responsibility, Notwithstanding
the evidence that was offered to the contrary. OF
this the Bulletin says:
SIN his estimate of GalIaghers claims to responsibility, he
differs with the community at large. We do not know what
particular and peculiar facilities the Judge may have for becom-
ing intimately acquainted with the manner Of man Gallagher is,
but we do not repose 81 much confidence in his Judgment in this
matter as we put in the estimate of the people at large; among
WHeH idSnc Ia hNCh 'f bS Pac 'r"' yN"
1t is impossible for any unbiased person to
peruse the decision of Judge Hoffman without
becoming convinced that justice in this case
has been laid aside, and that the award is neither
based on an impartial hearing, nor on the
testimony offered. Like too many former de-
cisions in the Courts of California, justice has
been again perverted to sinister objects. What
these objects may he. is not so apparent but the
fact that the Judge was among the strongest OPP
poncnts to the Vigilance Committee. and possibly
the fact that the party against whom the decision
was made was in sympathy with that committee,
may have had some weight in deciding the case
against him, although the evidence and facts
may have been in his favor.
An appeal from the decision has very properly
been taken to a higher Court, where there is very
little probability of its being sustained, or if sus-
tanned, with anything more than nominal dam
ages.