The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-06-03


heat OF the moment, in the desire TO
avoid untold dangers to the State, there
be no perversion OF the law itself to meet
the supposed case. The condition of
things in this country to which / have
adverted in former argument, with no
grand jury to find an indictment on the
strength OF which, and on which alone,
upon the principles of common law and
OF magma charta, persons accused of
felony can be brought to trial before a
trial jury, but the presentation OF the in-
dictnent rests solely with the Attorney
General upon the order OF the commit
ting magistrate, committing the defend
ants for trial by jury, requires, think,
unusual precautions to avoid placing
defendants in jeopardy of their lives by
a trial before jury which may be COM
posed more or less OF persons under the
Influence OF passion and interest. The
power OF a committing magistrate in this
country is undoubtedly very great. |
have adverted to the fact that usually in
the United States, and always in Eng
land, the power OF such magistrate is
confined to committing to Jail, he has
nothing to say as to whether the accused
shall be brought before jury or not.
a
ness CT this charge Of treason, or the ex-
ceedingly Objectionable and injurious ten
dency OF what might be termed treason
able or seditious language of the kind
that has been mentioned by the wit
nesses for the prosecution. My claim is,
that not only is none of that testimony
sufficient to base a charge of treason
upon, but that to allow a charge of trea-
son on such testimony to go before jury
would be subversive of the rights and
liberties of the Hawaiian people, solemn
ly guaranteed to them under the Consti-
tuition and Statutes OF the land.
With reference to this subject of the
infraction of the rights of others, especi-
ally of public rights, 1 may be permitted
to say that during the time that have
lived in this country, out of nine practi-
TONERS at this bar, and l am happy to
say successful and honored practitioners,
who studied in my law Office, not one
ever heard from me any suggestion or
hint which would allow him to believe
that it was right under any circumstances
to break the criminal law of the country,
or to advise others to do, or to condone
others in doing SO. l think that have
fairly earned the right to plead before
this Court, that no matter how objection
able the talk may be which IS presented
in testimony as having been used by any
of these defendants, it does not consti-
tute the crime charged, and that it would
be an outrage upon the laws of this
Kingdom to hold persons for trial on
charge of treason on the strength of such
testimony. On that subject, deem my
self entitled and in duty bound to use the
plainest and strongest language which
my feeble ability will permit me 10 use.
The statute distinctly requires that in
order to constitute treason there shall be
plotting or attempt to dethrone or
destroy the King" or 'levying of war
against the Kings Government" or
''adhering to the enemies thereof" and
that, "no person shall be convicted of
treason, but by the testimony of two or
more lawful witnesses to the same overt
act of treason whereof he stands
charged"
The Constitution of 1887, Art. 3, de-
clares that sail men may freely speak,
write and publish their sentiments on all
subjects, being responsible for the abuse
of that right. and no law shall be enact
ed to restrain the liberty of speech or of
the press" These words which l now
read, which were in the Constitution of
1864, are conspicuously omitted from the
Constitution of 1887, namely, Except
such laws as may be necessary for the
protection of His Majesty the King and
the Royal Family" 1t is unnecessary
for me to say that the Honorable JUS
tees of this Court, including Your Hon
or, must have been well aware when
that Constitution of 1887 was presented
to the late King and was signed by him
that those words were omitted from the
former Constitution. They must have
been we'll aware that that omission was
for some definite object and that it must
have some definite result. And / claim
that however wrong, however seditious,
however Objectionable, and / will add,
however dangerous the spoken words
may be which are claimed by the pros
ecution to have been used by these de-
PENDANTS, or by any of them, or to have
been listened to by them, or consented
to by them, such spoken words cannot
under this Constitution, or under any
construction of the act of treason, be
made an overt act of treason. If spoken
words, no matter whether in the form of
express agreements, or of advice, or of
suggestion, or OF the expression of wishes
or intention can constitute treason, then
the Hawaiian Islands will be reduced to
a great whispering gallery of tale bearers.
Charges of treason will be in the air.
Every man who has been heard to say
what he thought or what he wished,
what he planned or what he hoped in re-
gard TO the condition of things in this
country, would be liable to be immured
in the dungeons and await for weeks and
possibly for months a trial by Jury on a
charge affecting his life, his property, his
reputation, everything that is dear to
man. l claim that this is not, and it
never ought to be the law of the Ha-
walian Islands, and that when the time
should come that language of that sort
shall constitute in law charge of trea-
son, it will be necessary to change all
that part OF the present Constitution
which undertakes to secure personal lib
erty and personal rights. Take for a
moment the difficulty which even honest
men have in reporting correctly CONVEX
sation, or words that they have heard
the impossibility of an unframed mind
reporting the connection in which those
words were spoken, whether expressed
as a wish or hope, definite plan, or in
connection with other language which
would completely annul their force or
danger. / think all men may see how
great the danger would be of basing a
charge of treason upon spoken words.
Take the illustration of the witness of
yesterday who used certain language
which counsel for defendants, as it seems
incorrectly, understood to be that force
should be used in certain contingency.
The Court understood that language diff