The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-11-05

you are true to your responsibilities you
will not allow yourselves to be guided by
the approval or otherwise of outside peo-
pie. 1t should make no difference to
you what the common people or news
papers may say. A good many things
have been said in the course of argu-
ment which the Count regrets and will
allude to one or two and correct. There
is no law that requires Hawaiian cases
to be tried first in preference to foreign
cases. The rule of the Court says the
clerk shall make up the calendar putting
the Hawaiian cases first on the calendar.
That has been done. The responsibility
and order of trial rests upon the Attor-
ney-General and not on the Court. 1t
makes no difference to you whether A is
tried first or B or C; each case stands on
its own merits and nothing else should
be considered.
would call your attention to differ
ences between moral and legal wrongs.
The law in every country is that larceny
is crime, it is natural wrong and is
also made so by law. 1t is no moral
wrong to drive car at night without
lights, but it is an offence against the
statute laws of this country. There
is no moral wrong in storing over
ten cases of kerosene oil in one place
vet the law forbids it. All reli-
gious people believe in thanking God
for his mercies, but there is no law to
compel them so to do. The only ofense
or wrong which jury can have cogniz-
auce of are those acts which are forbid
den by the statute laws of this country.
Even if person should admit that he
committed a wrong and then endeav-
ored to offer as excuse that he did not
know the law against it, that would be no
excuse; the ignorance of the law excuses
no one. As l said before, this is very
unusual case. In this the defendant
offers plea OF not guilty, in the face OF
evidence given by himself i'll another
trial in which the contingent ingredients
are admitted. How can the ingredients
of any offense be proved. Strongest
proof would be by the admission OF the
party himself. He may do that in either
one OF two ways: by pleading guilty or
by going on the stand and reciting all
the facts. Wilcox went on the stand in
the Loomens case, and before he testified
he was cautioned by the Court. He re-
cited the narrative of events from the
IuCGllIS dl 1NllCl ul " NlAC S4L- 1L4SI anu
occupancy of the palace yard on July
30th. How can you acquit him on that
evidence? If you do acquit him you will
have to disbelieve him when he says he
did do those acts, or il you admit the
facts to be true, then only by his acts not
being an offense against the law. In this
would only remind you that you pro-
missed to regard the construction OF the
Court regarding the law. In order TO
acquit, you have either to disbelieve
Wilcox or 90 contrary to the instructions |
OF the Court. He has admitted a secret |
conspiracy TO effect the repeal OF gen |
eral law, the constitution, and to turn |
out the present Ministry, by show OF |
force. He has told you that he gathered |
a force together, about eighty in number |
at the start from Palama, making 800 in |
the palace yard; but he says they did |
not intend to use force unless resisted. !
Suppose a man charged with robbing a |
mail coach, where the practice is for the |
robbers to point gun or pistol at the |
drivers head, telling him to throw up |
his hands and throw down the sack. |
Suppose that that robber was captured |
and he should admit having pistol, but |
should offer the excuse that he did not |
intend to fire unless he was attacked? |
Why every judge would tell a jury that /
that was a robbery because OF the men
ace, the threat TO use force. Wilcox says |
the guns were not Quaker guns, not toy |
guns, but were loaded. He also tells |
you that the rifles were loaded at the |
palace gate when they found the gates |
were closed.
I don't wonder that the Hawaiians
are proud of their country; l also am |
proud of it we want to preserve our in |
situations and have reign OF law so as to !
secure justice; honesty should be dis |
played in every department Of the gov
eminent. No more is honesty required |
of ME as judge than OF you as jurors.
What would you think of me if l refused |
to approve OF an indictment because the
person indicted was my friend; l should |
be impeached and wouldldeserve to be |
driven from my Office. Gentlemen, the
country expects you to do your duty; it /
may be a severe struggle.
have also to say to you that it makes
no difference as far as the law in this
case is concerned whether His Majesty
the King was a party to the conspiracy.
The Legislature passes the laws and His
Majesty approves or disapproves OF them.
Since 1S40 down to the present time no
king in this country has had the power to
make or unmake law by the word of his
mouth. | will put very severe Illus
tration OF this matter; if any king should
happen to be engaged with another and
should commit crime, a murder for |
instance, the king could not be tried but
the man with him could be tried and
punished The Court is well aware OF
all the mitigating circumstances that
may be presented, but after sixty or
seventy years OF education, civilization
and Christianity, no Hawaiian could say
to-day that "what have done was right
because the King said So"
Gentlemen OF the jury, no doubt that
you are quite weary. The eyes OF the
entire community are fixed upon you;
many OF you are in this capacity for the
first time. l believe that none OF you
are other than industrious, laboring men
who earn your own honest living.
have no doubt that you will pay due re-
gard to all that l have said, and l hope
hat yon will return q verdict in accor-
lance with these instructions. Your
OWN ideas must not be considered when
he law is placed before you. a con-
,piracy to commit an act OF treason by
orce is against the law. l would say
hat the facts which the Crown has pre-
;ented are not disputed by any evidence
presented by the defense.
Mr.. Rosa excepted to two portions OF
His HonOr;S charva