The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-07-10

And this is all. Yet. after Otto tum
SUDDEN had been examined and when the
case for the State in rebuttal was closed
and while Mr.. Grossmeyer was on the
stand for the second time. Mr.. Lloyd. re-
| terrlnR to c. a. Spreckels, said: He
broke the market (Record page, 1922
REPEATING ACCUSATIONS.
That is to say: The Chronicle Novem.
| Is, 1883, falsely. and without Information.
| asserted that dividends had been declared
more than year before to bull the market,
| and to enable tho "Spreckels crowd, .
which included Claus Spreckels and the
! defendant, TO sell their stock and rope
| In " the public. including employees, and
| Germans and intimate friends. a year
later it repeated the accusation in sub
stance; and, when on this trial, its asper-
| sions are denied, it undertakes to prove
them by leaving out Claus Spreckels and
! this defendant altogether, and by showing
| af er the period 10 which its libel related,
| plared 5000 shares on the market and
| broke 1t; and when il ANONYMOUSLY fails
in this restricted effort, instead of throw
ing up the sponge and admitting that 1t
had failed. as q great State ought TO d ;.
private counsel still adheres To a disproved
accusation. This displays a Vehemence in
advocacy, which is SO unnatural, that it
must be purely representative, and what
IL represents Is the kind of material upon
which personal journ ism is based.
think you will gree with me. after this
exposition which is duplicated in connec-
ton with every other libel perp trated by
the Chronicle on Claus Spreckels and his
sons that personal journalism is We ed in
the lower elements Of human nature; that
IL caters to the most dep aved appetitea
and passions: that il accomplish no OBJ
ject except that of promoting iOlence and
degradation: and that it should be tb.lt-
Grated from this Coast as it has b en-
obliterated from every other reputable
community in the world.
We have however, on the subject of this
meeting of Noyember 10, 1854, not only the
testimony Of Mr.. Claus Spreckels and the
other witnesses called by the prosecution,
whom l have already mentioned, but sew
aral Other gentlemen, including corrobora-
tive witnesses furnished by the other side.
and l deemed It important to treat this
part of the case fully. because we are now
indeed approaching a climax. Mr.. Center,
a perfectly fair and intelligent witness,
who left Tor the Sandwich islands on No
vember 10, 1884. Immediately after the
meeting, had long quotations embracing
the salient passages in the article. read to
him by Mr.. Taylor, and
DENIED THEM ONE BY ONE.
Like DR.. Barkan, Andrew Baird and H.
Grossmeyer. he saw no angry stockholders
there-not even Hugh Craig, whom they
did see and hear, al hough he insisted that
ne was silent. He observed no indigna.
ton. 1 read FROM his direct examination,
pages gil and 9I2 Of the record
He heard no complaint of the way the
business had been ca ried on or in any re-
spect. lie was positive that no mention
" made of the two dividends of 1882.
The depreciation of the stock wa not re-
terred to within his hearing and he recol-
lected no evidence Of any dissatisfaction,
while he presumed the ma GRITTY of the
stockhOlderS knew how the real estate
stood. (CrOsS-6Xamlnatlon, pages Jlj 9l6.l
Mr.. Harrison saw no exhibition of
anger or angry stockholders, and states
that no matters came before the meeting
which would not bear publicity" and he
gave q concise account of the proceedings
al the meeting, from and including report
Of the President, Claus Spreckels, TO and
including the appointment and selection
of the committee. Record, pages 1929 and
l03UD Observe the report, which is short,
SO that you can bear in mind tn, falsi of
the forged extracts in quotation ma, ks
the expression is not too ronR-in the
of November Ii, 1884.
In direct relation 10 this report and /
financial exhibit was the mi ,conCeD ion of |
Mr.. Craig, the only angry stakeholder" !
10 whose to .timony 1 sh IL speedily allude I
bring to your notice here, as appr pri- |
It ly belonging to this part of my argu-
mont, two or three ex. lanations made by :
Mr.. Claus Spreckels toward the close of ,
he evidence.
BUILDINGS ON THE ISLAND.
And. first. he proved that the buildings
II the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar
Company in the Sandwich islands were
neither wholly nor partly of /
but entirely of corrugated iron.
This. of course does not include what may |
% termed the living houses. tRecord, page |
6l4.)
Second-He showed that the quality of
goods kept at Maui was due to the fact
hat he company has a general store" ,
here. from which a profit of from s32. 100 /
70 $36. 0OO e year Is reaIzed. (PaGe 1881
Third-He stated that the lease or water
lights from Mrs. Mckee is in the name of
he company.
And, fourth, he informs us that Mr..
Spring Valley Water Works was not an
gent of his, but fully interested with him,
nd that he. Mr.. Schussler acting as en-.
'ineer for the company, had pro ected and
onsiruoted LIS original water-works."
Pages 1915 and 1916.
In addition to so much of his testimony
8 l have already gone over, Mr.. Nc.
Allister also brought before Mr.. Harris n
poetic passages from the article under
onSideratlon, and, in each instance that
entleman repudiated the suggestion as
ntrue.
Mr.. Harrison also furnished to YOU.
Trough Judge Campbell, who presumably
'as not in need of 1t, much valu lbIe in
0rmatl0n about the covenants to stand
eized to USES, which have been in exist
nee and enforced at law for over hundreds
{ years, and Of the eie ct in equity of dec
lrationS OF trust as subordinating the
gal title to the holder of the beneficial
lterest. He showed that, when the Ha-
'ailan Commercial Company-the drst of
lie two corpo ations-was formed, Claus
preckels was the owner of certain lands,
nd the lessee OF certain crown lands in
await stood. there coulo be no lease of
rOwn landsf more tn n thirty years. and
lat the Indenture Of lease itself contained
covenant against assignment. Al that
me, moreover. Will it was not GER
IN that a foreign corporation could not
,qu re real property in the Sandwich /
lands, there was no !
EXPRESSED LEGISLATION,
them to DO So and therefore
IL firm of JarDoe & Harrison VINO were
legal r IL 4ax uaii 70.
ercial Company, and may De permitted
add, without fear of cont ADDICTION, tw1 '
aole, careful and ,crupulous lawyers as {
n be found hoe or anywhere-recoul- :
ended the execution of the de laratioa +
trust which W prepared in their o.lIce I
4ofo. The OBJ ect of that instrument was
VesI IN the Hawaiian commercial COM 7
my the equitable right to all the property |
at MIR. Spreckels held at Maui, and thai
ect was Legally accomplished under the q
rection Of Mes5r@. JarUoe & Harrison I
ldge Campbell viii not disparage his t
Vn legal reputation by Questioning these /
o. Osllons, nor Will he deny that all The s
<hts the hawaiian Company had 1t \
insfeIred by its assignment to the Ha- b
allan Commercial and Sugar COMPANY n
G stockholders in which were thu amply n
Ste ted from the time OF its organi1a. 4
IN.
This restriction on assignment in the
ase did not operate upon anything eX- 4
pit the technical right of Mr.. Spreckels n
transfer IL, and did not prevent HIM =
1m h1loin the indenture itself and ali
fruits for the sole benefit OF the cor n
ration, and there is no connection what &
er, either al law or IN equity. between 4
Is restriction nd the assignment from n
9 first TO the second corporation. ,hec- =
d pages 1917. 1881, I0}l, 10 l}, 1851 y
Mo. cover. III 1850 the Hawaiian iegis- +
lure enacted law permitting foreign
poratiOns TO hold land in the Kingdom, h
q IN 1882 settlement was made between
r. Spreckels and the Government, by 4
1ich he surrendered some property on q
g island of Oahu and his leaseh i'd in n
'est in the island of Maui was converted ri
n faa 81 mr. nj 81