Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1885-08-01


Iu pou Common lnformers) on a
charge Of conspiracy and their conyic-
ton by jury, we deem a matter Of
sufficient Importance to merit more
than passing comment Not 50 much
that certain Chinese should be found
for their own gain, or from pure malice,
conspiring against certain others OF their
own oeuntrymen, but that their supe
riors should have acted as they have
throughout in the affair. Upon the
evidence as given in the police court,
Judge Bickerton expressed in strong
terms his want of any hesitation in
committing the defendants for trial at
the jury term, saying at the same time,
with reference to the officer, Wong Tai
Poon, tina, he had committed de
liberate perjury as well !" and particu-
larly calling the attention Of his "supe-
riors to the fact. After judgment was
given, the marshal Immediately in
quired the amount of bail required,
which was fixed by the Judge at $500.
for each of the prisoners $50 called.
1t is fact that no arrest was ever made
of any Of them, they being simply told
to appear on the day set for trial that
even after commitment in the police
court, they were allowed to 90 upon their
own recognizance, and further, that the
two police officers Wong Tai Poon and
Kauhane were not even suspended from
Office, pending their trial before a jury.
AT the jury trial, the remarkable fact
was disclosed by the marshal that Wong
Tai Poon had been appointed at the
request of the king Further than this,
nothing very remarkable occurred,
unless it be considered so that ten
jurors out Of twelve, after about ten
minutes deliberation, came to the con
clusion that according to the evidence
(Which they had perfect right to in
terpret as Mty Plsased) the prisoners
SO called were guilty of conspiracy in
the second degree-with no recon-
mendation to mercy. Again, at the re.
quest of the marshal, they were allowed
to go upon their own recognizance until
last Wednesday, when they were sen
fenced to pay fine of 50 each. If the
verdict was contrary to the judges
charge, as the Bulletin would intimate,
it was not contrary to the evidence
and if jury is not to decide upon the
evidence, we would like to be informed
what their peculiar province is. But,
as to the judges charge, it could not
have been so distinctly favorable to the
defendants as to warrant the accusation
that the jury ''must have misundcr
stood" it, when they were distinctly told
that they might take the opening par,
of the prosecuting counscls addres,
as part of the instruction of the court
Counsel must have forgotten himself, j
he turned the prosecutioninto defense
So far as we have been able to learn
it was scarcely more (as Mr.. Hartwel
put lt) than a question as to whether ;
conspiracy had been committed on the
one side, or whether all the witnesse
on the other had committed perjury
1t was scarcely more than a question O
veracity between several Chinese
mostly better class merchants, agains
whom the jury knew nothing, and Z
police officer in whose favor the deput,
marshal could say nothing good ;
man who is serving out term 70
house-breaking; and another who nigh
be serving out one also for perjury
committed in the Akiona case, had H.
not been advised to goback and alter hi
testimony to save himself There ha
been great deal of outside talk, O
this case having been part of an organ
lied effort among large class of crimi
nal Chinese, to PROSTATE the homes
efforts of the executive in exposin
crime. 1t has had a certain effect, bu
where has been the proof1 Had W
any proof that this was the case, non
would be before us in our endeavor t
aid by every possible means in exposn
the same. We court no favor and W
fear no frown.
II The edict restricting the incoming {
a Chinese to this kingdom was issued b
:. the government, March IS, 1855. Th
e edict provided that Chinese who leay
r the kingdom, desiring to return, mus
take out permits; and that not MOI
: than IS Chinese without permits woul
; be allowed to land from any one vesse