The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1892-06-03
TEE TREASON CASES.
GO. ciuded from ID Pages


secrets of the organization, the Sec
rets of this conspiracy, were to suffer
the death penalty at the hands Of
their co-conspirators. We have
proved the fact that these meetings
were in secrecy we have proved that
they were in fear OF the police and
that the members were instructed
what to say if the police should hap.
happen to make raid upon them.
We have proved that they were adj
vised to buy firearms. The men
were told to buy them If they had
the money, il thew didn't have the
money that the executive committee
would take il into their hands to see
that they were provided. We have
proved, aud it is not contradictcd
and therefore it must DC taken as
true, that Colonel Ashford told one
of his co-consplrstors that he had
sent for one hundred revolvers that
could be concealed under their coats
and therefore not excite suspicion
and consequently be Of more use in
case of an attack. We have also
proved that it was discussed at these
meetings how and when an attack
should be made upon the palace, aud
what does that show il your Honor
please but an attempt TO dethrone the
Queen, an attack by men who have met
in secret and are bound by solemn
oath that they should 60 armed with
all the munitions OF war and make an
attack upon the palace; that palace,
as your Honor knows and everybody
knows, is the residence of Her Ma
jesty the Queen. Is not that in cor
roboration that this conspiracy was
to dethrone Her Majesty and remove
her from the palace and from her
throne. say that that contemplat
ed attack upon the palace shows dis
tinctly the motives that these men
had in their organization. We have
proved also overt acts, if 1 may use
the term, in the furtherance and in
the carrying out of this conspiracy.
We have proved that these men were
ordered to buy arms. We have prov
ed that Mr.. Markham, one Of the de-
PENDANTS and one Of the co-conspira
tors, was the man VINO was to see TO
providing of arms for these men.
We have proved that Mr.. Markham
went around enquiring here and there
for these arms; that he took native
to Mr. Lederer short time ago, dur
ing the continuance Of this conspir-
acy, and purchased rifle. We have
proved that he himself purchased
Two rifles from Mr.. Hingley. Now,
if Your Honor please, if those are not
overt acts in the direction of procur-
ing and preparing force or putting
themselves in condition, in readiness
to use force, | know not what are.
The crime of treason in case of
this nature is to be proved by all
that has been said, all these sayings
at these secret meetings, all their
acts outside or at the meetings and
from all the evidence which has been
presented the inference is to be
drawn as to what was their intention
and what was their object, and say
from the evidence as have pointed
out 10 Your Honor, there can be but
one inference, and that is that they
were putting themselves in readiness
and were plotting and carrying on
during all this time a plot to over
throw and destroy Her Majesty the
Queen and dethrone her.
think that have answered the
first, second, third and fourth points
raised in this motion. The fifth one
is that spoken words cannot under
the Hawaiian statute of treason as
we'll IS under the Hawaiian Consti-
tuition of 1887, constitute or form
the offense of treason, or constitute
or form the offense of plotting or at
tempting to plot, which, if your
Honor please, we do not charge, an
attempt to plot. I say that plotting,
as l have shown your Honor, is syn
onymous with conspiracy, and from
the nature of the word plotting isself
must we prove plotting by the fact
that they have done everything in
writing2 Does it not show that some
mastea mind, some man who proba-
bly, knows what the evidence of writ
ing and memoranda and minutes
an organization of this sort would
tell against them in court, that
for that reason they have en-
tirely done away with any writing
and kept no memoranda o! their pro-
ceedings at all, was directing this
conspiracy? l ask your Honor how
is it best to prove a plotting under
any statute, be it the statute OF co.,
spiracy or OF treason: how can We
prove plotting except by words; the
conversations concerning acts, anu
whatever acts may be done in furth
erance and in carrying out those
words? 1t seems to me that have
also answered the 9th one :-"Con-
spiracy 10 commit treason, if such a
conspiracy was shown, is not of itself
treason, nor is il an overt act of trea-
son" l submit, if your Honor
please, the definition that | have CIV
en- already and your Honor's decision
that the plotting itself, that the con-
spiraGy itself, is the overt act, com.
pletely does away with that ground OF
| the mOtiDn