The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-04-26

TO VOuCn Tor MIN. II he was d Ddu mdI
he was capable of deeeiving Luce. TAX
another position. II he was an honor
able man why not suppose he told the
truth if not, why should he not have
manufactured the whole thing and beer
smart enough to keep it from Luce? The
whole case rested upon the admissions
of Luce given in the evidence of the
Minister of the Interior and the Attorney
General. Luce himself said he be-
lieved Hayley. How could anyone else
say he disbelieved him. The only other
man from whom the truth could be got
out was Canavarro The defense tried
to get him and could not There was
evidence that the prosecution tried to
1t would be great hardship to convict
him without Canavarro. Counsel here
quoted authorities on verbal admissions
and pointed to discrepancies between the
statements of the two Ministers. Coun-
sci went on to review the evidence at
some length, arguing that no motive OF
gain to Luce had been shown beyond
the ordinary motive of being more
secure. In order to convict it must be
proved, not only that Hayley lied, but
that Luce knew he lied.
At noon the Court took a recess, and
on reassembling Mr.. Hartwell resumed.
Abiding to what passed in Mr.. Thurs
toms office, he asked if it did not show
the absolute integrity of Mr.. Luce that
he was willing to risk his case on Mr..
Canavarro's testimony 1t was not likely
that his counsel would take him there
to give away his case to the Government
if he had been guilty. In conclusion, he
asked the Court to direct the Jury on
certain points of law, and appealed to
them to be mindful of their duty to the
public and the defendant.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS ADDRESS.
Mr. Ashford in his opening remarks
spoke at some length on the relation of
sympathy to criminal prosecutions. He
denied being actuated by any prejudice,
In some respects he cOncurred with the
opposite counsel. He admitted there
had been great scandal at the Custom
House. But it was difficult to see how
these illegal Withdrawals could take
place unless there was some one TO
make them. Admitting this was prac-
tically an admission of the whole case.
The opposite counsel had admitted that
the system was dishonest, that 1t vas
scandalous and that his client was con-
cerned in it. In order to ease his client
he said that TewkesDury knew no more
about it now than he did before. That
was not sound reason why the defend
ant should be acquitted The report Of
the special committee had been referred
to. 1t was upon that report that he
(Mr. Ashford) took his stand. He was
carving out its recommendations in
bringing these proceedings. In the
event of a conviction being obtained he
did not press for imprisonment. He did
not want to single out one man and give
him the full penalty of the law. 1t was
not an attempt to hunt down the liquor
seller. but to vindicate the majesty of
the law. Briefly summarizing the cir
cumstances existing at the time this
transaction was first mooted, he laid
stress upon the fact that Canavarro had
then no dealings with Luce. Neverthe-
less Hayley came with blank order for
remission of duties to the extent of $500.
Yet Mr.. Luce thought it perfectly legiti-
mate. Was that sufficient to make him
inquire what in the world Canavarro
should send such an order for? He SAYS
he saw the signature of Canavarro, but
did not see the erasure. He must have
seen either the erasure or the words
out. 1t was said by the other
side that the erasure was more promi-
nent now. What would be the natural
effect of Mr.. Luce writing all these
words on the paper? Nevertheless he
filled them. He states that the particu-
lar items were not dictated by Hayley,
and he confessed on the stand that he
took it to the Custom House, and these
goods went into his general stock This.
combined with the phraseology of the
order, was sufficient to convey a false
''Please deliver to A. S.
Canavarro the following goods for his
own use.n Was not that a pretenSe
that Mr.. Canavarro had ordered these
goods? The opposite counsel had asked
where were the profits to Mr.. Luce.
They accrued by putting 5000 to the
credit of man who owed him nothing.
that Luce did believe Cana
varro had instructed Haylev to secure
$500 remission and did coincide with
the whole thing, would that prove his
innocence or that Canavarro was also in
the conspiracy? 1t had been argued
that the placing of this amount to the
credit OF Canavarro showed good faith.