The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1860-01-12

for, may ever remain a buiwark of our individual
liberty and the security of society but if al
lowed to be perverted, SO that justice is trampled
ON, every citizen may well tremble not only for
his own peace and safety, but for that also of the
nation.
The trials for manslaughter and murder before
the Supreme Court last week have been the topic
of animated discussion, both among foreigners
and natives. The singular decision given in the
manslaughter case and the issues pending on
it, lead us to publish an abstract of the testi-
mony and the charge to the jury. Both are suf-
fciently clear for any person to make up his
opinion on the case. The verdict of the jury
was, Not guilty.; or in other words, Horton COM
mitted an act of JUST fabIe homicide. Whatever
may have been the motives which led to this ver-
dict, there is scarcely a man who reads the testi-
mony or who heard it in court, who believes it
to be according to the eridence oTd the lauo?
This verdict, as well as that in the case of Capt.
Mason, may well be pondered and discussed by
our thinking community. 1t tells us that a supe-
rior may destroy the life of his inferior, and the
act will in our courts of justice pass as lawful
and justifiable. In this matter, which has now
become a public affair, the press has the right to
discuss the merits of the case, and, if necessary,
warn the public of the tendency of the present
state of affairs. Some think that the press should
make itself a dummy, to speak only when spoken
to. We have always asked, and shall always
claim the right to speak on all questions of pub
lie interest. A journal conducted on any other
principle, can be of no benefit to society.
The trial before us shows that the life of a ma
tive has been destroyed,-the acknowledged re-
suit of an act OF violence, and the offender is ac-
quilted, and allowed to 60 abroad free of pain
and penalty-more than his warmest friends
asked or himself expected. What may we look
for next? Perhaps that one of our citizens walk
ing quietly at MONDAY through the street, may
be struck down and killed, the offender arrested
and brought to trial, the killing clearly proven,
but some technical bubble, some amiable char
acter in the defense, makes it all laurfui, all jUsti-
fable. Such is the state to which our commu-
nifty is advancing. Three-fourths of our resi-
dents believe, on the evidence published, that the
seaman, Joseph Watson, came to his death by
the act of Captain Mason of the Orestes. And
Captain Mason was acquitted, and greeted as an
injured man. Four-ffths OF those who heard the
evidence in court must have been convinced that
the steward of the Frances Palmer came to his
death by the act of c.. S. Horton. Yet Mr.. Hor-
ton is acquitted.
We are not blind to the arguments brought up
by the counsel for the defense, who certainly de-
serve praise for the skill exhibited for their client.
We are not blind TO the fact that the accused
had always borne an unexceptiona5le character,
and that this was his first offense. Nor are we
ignorant of the authority with which an officer
on board ship is clothed. But that authority by
means extends to the taking of the life OF his
inferior for trivial ofense, while the vessel is
quietly lying at the wharf.
We may speak warmly on this matter, but we
feel that we have rights at stake-we feel that if
the deceased had been our brother, as he was our
that our rights had been invaded,
and that justice demanded some atonement. The
blood of that poor kanaka is as sacred in the eye
of the law as that of the Chief Justice. Had the
case been reyersed-bad Horton been killed by
the steward, would any such result hare been
Justice answers, No. lie would have
followed to the gallows the poor culprit who was
week hung, or if found guilty of manslaugh-
he would not have been thought too good
for a ten years term on the reef.
We may be charged with want of sympathy
and kindly-feeling in this matter to a stranger in
misfortune, as we were charged by the government
speaking of the Mason tragedy. But We
appear here as public journalists, and where duty
calls us to warn the public, our sympathies must
not be allowed to bias our Judgment. We find
no fault with the Court, whose charge to the
Jury. excepting the last item, relating to the
authority of the mate in port,) appears impartial
and just. Neither do we find fault with the
Jury in itself. The fault lies in the circumstances
which our community is placed, in being so
limited in numbers, that iInpartiality ard per-
fectly unbiased judgment in cases of Importance
Are sometimes unattainable. The jury list is ex-
ceedingly limited, and must always be SO but
this evil can BE- IN a measure corrected, by increas-
the list SO as to embrace every person who is
capable of duty, and not solely those who are
and often intimately acquainted with
the parties ut suit, who sit, perhaps, at the same
table and drink from the same glass.
In the case of the two Cinnamon charged with
accessories to the murder of Louika, we
see them quietly discharged from custody, be-
cause forsooth, no admissible testimony has been
by the crown attorney. We would
lsk, if any extra efforts have been made by the
prosecution to obtain testimony, or has the case
been allowed to come into Court, trusting solely
10 the testimony Of a convicted murderer and to
for the issue? Even the testimony of
that convict was not sought for, till after his con-
7~ictiCn, which the merest tyro in law might have
suspected would be thrown ont. The two per-
sons brought up and charged as accessories to the
murder, are unquestionably guilty, and some facts
duplicating them no doubt exist, which with ex-
IA efforts might have been obtained. But we see