The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1885-12-30
THE VICTIM OF GOVERNMENT GIN.

ticket from all responsibility for
the death of Kalaakoa, who was
started on fatal spree at Gov
ernment party convention last
Monday. 1t gives a statement by
the gentleman himself, to the effect
that he was present only one hour
at the meeting where the disgraceful
proceedings occurred, and that he
"did not order, or pay for, or dis
tribute n drop of gin, or any other
drink We have no desire to press
Mr.. Hayselden's responsibility fur
ther than his own admission. That
is bad enough He was in the COM
pany of the unprincipled persons
who did not scruple to debauch hun
dreds of native electors with some
description of cheap and noXious
liquor. 1t will be time enough for
him to deny having paid his share
for the stuff, when the campaign
bills have been settled.
1t was a very natural thing to
''talie for granted " that an inquest
should have been held. AS matter
of fact, no less than member of
the Privy Council informed us in
the forenoon that an inquest was
being held, and reporter was
sent, as soon as convenient, to as
certain the result, who returned
with DR.. Webb's report, under the
wrong impression that it was also
the verdict of a coroner's jury. 1t
appears, however, that no inquest
was held. Why not! A man and
a citizen had come to his death out
of the usual course, making an un-
doubted occasion for searching
inquisition by the coroner. If there
was no reason for an inquest, there
was none for post mOrtem eXami-
nation, that, under similar circum-
stances, in well-regulated communi-
ties, would only be performed by
request of coroner's jury. Why
there was no inquest will not be a
subject of wonder to the public,
when it is known that the victims
last spree was clearly traceable back
to the party convention.
Nothing more shows the difficulty
of the AdUertiser's task of defend
ing it's political friends, than the
depression it makes to accuse the
BULLETIN of having insulted reli-
gious body in publishing recent
communication. 1t would have been
time enough for our contemporary
to have made such transparent bid
for favor in certain quarter, when
the religious fraternity in question
had themselves complained of our
latitude to correspondent who had
grievance against them. 1t hap
pens that, upon a subject closely
related to our correspondents COM
plant, we have lately had occasion
to publish an emphatic contradiction
by the Brothers of st. Louis College,
of statements offensive to them
appearing in an Adcertiser report of
an event at that institution. Thus
it was itself our contemporary
should have accused of insulting
behavior to the body in question.
Probably the offensive report was
published by our contemporary
through inadyertence, for nobody
would suspect it of knowingly adj
mitting anything, legitimate OF
otherwise, into its columns, which
might involve the displeasure of its
clique or the loss of patronage.
It's too great carefulness in that
respect is one of the reasons why
the advertiser has not particle of
influence in the community.
To come back to the main ques-
ton, in conclusion, it is significant
fact that the advertiser has not
word TO say in defense of the native
candidates for the part they bore
in the proceedings attendant on
Mondays convention. The facts