The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-10-19
SUPREME COURT.
THURSDAY, Oct. II.

/, h'ioLAeI OI the jury, you commenced
TINS case on Monday last, unless I an
mistaken, it is now Thursday even
ing so during the greater part O
chls week We have occupied ourselye
In listening patiently to the testimon,
mat has been adduced on behalf of tn,
crown and that has been adduced OF
pehalf OF the defence. l trust that yo,
remember that testimony, although
you may be somewhat weary as un
qouotedly you are. Judging by mysel
must believe that you are weary will
having stayed here so long; still the par
ticuiars, the essentials of the case are NJ
doubt fresh in your minds. 1t is a mat
ter OF great congratulation to us all tina
inns IS the first case, SO far as I am aware
ana nave had an Intimate knowledge
OF the conduct of judicial proceedings II
THIS country for the last fifteen or twenty
years or over, that Chinaman has in
terested himself in the, to use a milo
expression, "politics" of this country
sufficiently to be engaged in any way in
a political movement. Heretofore we
have not regarded them as an essential
element in our politics, they have not
had the vote to any extent and they
have contented themselves in plying
their several vocations and they have
busted themselves in the making OF
money.
+, This young man says, if you believe
/ him. and undoubtedly you will in this
respect, that he is but twenty four years
of age, and that he has spent twelve
years of that time, half of his life, in this
! country. You have heard the testi.
mony that he understands the Hawaii
an language, and that he understands the
English language, and that he admits the
testimony OF Mr.. Boyd that he was a
schoolmate of his at the Fort street
school, that may perhaps account for
his association with the natives and
half whites in those several meetings
about which you have heard so much
during this week.
He is not charged with treason, gen
tlemen of the jury, but he is charged
with being one of the several conspira-
tors who combined together to commit
treason. 1t is necessary perhaps that |
should explain in general terms what a
conspiracy is, and l can do so no better
than to read you from the statute. Our
statute laws defines as follows:
"a conspiracy is malicious or fraud
ulent combination or mutual undertake
ing or concerning together of two or more
to commit any offence" and that is as
far as l need read as far as this case is
concerned. In other words, to put it
more concisely, conspiracy is combina-
ton, an agreement to break the law that
is, to commit a felony. Now this in
dictment, charges the defendant with
conspiracy with Mr.. Wilcox and others
to levy war against the government,
which is one of the treasons that may
be committed in this country, and the
levying of war by statute, is this: cit
shall be requisite that the persons con-
\cerned therein be parties to some overt
act, IN or towards procuring, preparing
or using force, or putting themselves in
a condition in readiness to use force,
either by being present at such overt
act, or by promoting, aiding in, or be-
ing otherwise accessory before the fact
to the same"
GIN order to constitute the levying of
war, the force must be employed or in
tended to be employed for the dethroning
or destruction of the King or in contrary
ention of the laws, or in opposition to
the authority OF the Kings Government,
with an intent or for an object affecting
some of the branches or departments of
said government generally, or affecting
the enactment, repeal or enforcement of
laws in general, or of some general law"
and so forth.
l presume that the difficulty that you
will have in this case, if you have any,
will be not so much in understanding
what the exact offence is that is charged
against this man, but as to what degree
of testimony would be sufficient to con-
vict him on it. Now gentlemen, it is not
necessary in order that you convict him
that he had signed an agreement with
Mr. Wilcox witnessed by an individual
and acknowledged before notary pub
lie that he had engaged with him to
assist him in reinstating the old constitu-
ton by force, or that he would assist
him in any act of levying war. 1t would
be absurd to require that, the law does
not require such an impossibility that
the government should prove such
state of things, and read you from one
of the we'll considered authorities, Whar-
toms Criminal Law, Sec. 1898: ''that
the actual fact of conspiring may be in
ferred from the circumstances, and
the concurring conduct of the de-
PENDANTS need not be directly proved.
Any joint action on material point or
collocation of independent and co-opera-
tive acts by persons closely associated
with each other, is held to be sufficient
to enable the jury to infer concurrence
in sentiment, and one competent witness
will suffice to prove the cooperation Of
any individual conspirator." You must
be satisfied that there was plot or con-
spiracy agreed to be formed, an under
taking, combination to commit treason !;
and secondly, that the defendant was
one of them, was conspirator.
say it is not necessary that he should
have declared openly and that it
should be proved by a number of wit
nesses these words: 81 hereby combine
| and confederate with r. w. Wilcox to
levy war against the Hawaiian Govern
| ment," slighter proof than that would
convict him of the offense, conspiracy to
commit treason.
Now shall not weary you with a
| long repetition of the testimony; you
have heard the addresses of both counsel
in which the material facts have been
reviewed, and the coloring given to
them, the inference and arguments
drawn from them which will suit the re-
spective sides which they advocate.
| If you should find from the testimony
that Ho Fon, the defendant, was present
| at meetings where treason was Contem-
| plated, was planned, and that he was
| aware of the intention of the parties
and that he participated in the meetings
and assented to them, then he is CO.
conspiratOr.