The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1875-01-30
THE PACIFIC
SATURDAY. U 80.

n UNA 4 . a an ~
GRAVE DOUBTS have long been entertained by
eminent writers on Jurisprudence as TO whether
the system Of trial by jury Is, after all, the per-
lection Of human wisdom. Without undertaking
here 10 present the arguments, pro and con, that
have been Published from time to time on this
subject, we may remark that the history Of jury
trials in Hawaii nei affords but little consolation
for the advocates Of the system. Nothing can be
more uncertain, as a general rule, than the YER
dict Of a native Hawaiian jury, and they have
not infrequently been known, under the influence
Of prejudice or within, to Hy squsrely in the face
Of both law and eVlderce. a case in point
occurred in a trial in the Supreme Court during
this week.
IL Is known that recently the police have been
putting forth extra ~exertiOns to stop the wretched
beer making and selling business that has 80
aourished in this city for a year past. Many
convictions have been had and fines imposed in
the police court, and the prospects were that the
traffic would be broken up. On the 5th inst, a
native man was brought before the Magistrate
on a charge for selling and furnishing, this being
his third ofense. On the trial, a woman who
owned the premises where the ofense was charged
10 have been committed, came forward as a wit
ness for the defense and testified on oath that she,
and not the defendant, furnished the beer and
received the pay for it. The result was that the
man was discharged, whereupOn the woman was
a~rraigned and, pleading guilty without hesitation,
was fined in the sum Of one hundred dollars.
From this judgment of the Police Magistrate she
took an appeal to the Supreme Court and a trial
by jury. The trial came of on Tuesday last
before Mr.. Justice Harris, and ten out Of twelve
native Hawaiian Jurors, under their oaths, return
ed n verdict Of not guilty The conclusion
arrived at by the jury would seem to amount to
this That when the woman pleaded guilty to
the charge of furnishing intoxicating drinks, she
was mistaken and that when she testified on
oath to having sold and furnished the same to
natives, she committed perjury. For ourselves,
who do not profess to be learned in the law, the
proposition is not very clear that a party crimi-
nally charged in a court Of competent Jurisdiction,
and who unreseryedly and unquali6edly pleads
guilty as charged and takes sentence thereon, can
be entitled to have the question of guilty or not
guilty retired by a jury. We can understand
that an appeal might properly lie to a higher
Court on the ground of excessive or illegal pun
isbment, but not on the main question of fact,
which can be no longer in issue.
i We may easily guess the mischieTous effect
upon the average native mind of the acquittal of
these beer sellers. The wretched, demoralizing
business, which was in a fair way of being closed
out through the e~xertions of the police authorities
in strictly and energetically enforcing the law,
will now be revived with fresh yigor, and show
it's hydra head in every direction.
1t has been observed that our juries not infre-
quently render yerdicts that are presumably the
result of either within or prejudice; and in cases
where their own countrymen are prosecuted under
the laws against the sale or use of intoxicating
drinks, the feeling-wbich has been growing rap
idly in latter years-that the Hawaiian in this
respect has not " equal rights with the foreigner,
undoubtedly enters largely into the consideration
of the subject. This sentiment was very appar-
ent in the discussions at the last session of the
Legislature, on the bill to repeal all restrictions
on the liquor traffic, so far as selling or furnishing
to natives. And it may have been the effect of
the same feeling which caused a failure to render
a verdict in another case in the Supreme Court
this week, where q native woman was charged, on
remarkably clear and positive testimony, with
having retailed spirituous liquor without q license
yet a native jury would not convict. sH
The inevitable and unfortunate result of the
experience that We are having, will be to throw
contempt upon the whole system of jury trials in
these islands. Who will care to risk property,
much less life, to such an ordeal? We are glad
however to perceive that our native contemporary,
the Lahui HalgGH, in its issue of this week is
attempting to arouse a public opinion on the sub
ject, and hope it may succeed. The Hawaiians
are peculiarly sensitive to sarcasm, and they get
it in the present instance.