The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-05-11
q" That Opium Trial"

every person has the right to be
secure from all unreasonable searches
and seizures of his person, his house,
his papers and his effects and no
warrants shall issue, except on pro-
bable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized. ARTICLE Y, Ha-
waiian Constitution.
Mr.. EDITOR 1t is evident from
your article under the above cap
ton in this mornings issue, that
you have been imposed upon as to
the facts involved in the late prose
cutions of Messrs. Brown, Williams
and Johnson, in Honolulu and
Wailuku.
Many of the alleged facts recited
by you were entirely new to me
though l have been connected with
the case for the defense from the
first. 1t is certainly news to me
that / at any time asked for delay
for the purpose of securing wit
nesses. AS a matter Of fact, at
no time thought of securing wit
nesses, such was my faith that the
Crown had no case to present
against the defendants.
The alleged opium find, of $50
tins, by a little girl, whom Mr..
Boardman is intimated to have in
troduced, is also news to me, as is
the allegation of her having been
Spirited away" to Hawaii or else
where. | assure you that no sug-
gestion of such find" or of such
"spiriting away" was made by
anyone connected with the case,
either in the Honolulu or in the
Wailuku Court. If such a quantity
Of opium was discovered, it may
not be impertinent to ask-why
did not the Crown prosecutor either
produce or mention it, in the pro-
gress of the trial ? What has be-
come Of it Have the police got
it ? and if so, have they found it
more profitable to devote it to the
secret service " of that chaste and
efficient department than to dispose
of it according to law ? Really,
Mr.. Editor, some one has been
stufing" you about opium dis
coveries.
Your recital rs to the contents Of
letters said to have been opened by
the police is no less a revelation to
defendants and their counsel. You
assume, with your usual sustained
fancy, that the letters in question
were genuine, and that they were
really found in the possession of
defendant Brown, neither of which
fact has, as yet, judicially ap-
peared; but who shall doubt the
superiority of your facilities and
equipment over that of the Courts,
Mr.. Editor, for discovering such
occult fact ? Has it ever occurred
to your ready imagination, Mr..
Editor, that persons who, being
charged with the protection of pri-
vate rights, as officers of the
law, are capable of so far in
vading those rights as to rifle
the private correspondence of
others, are not morally superior
to the insertion of such letters as
will best suit their purposes, in the
envelopes whose seals they have
broken? In this respect, again,
sir, it would seem from your edi-
torial that your credulity has been
imposed upon.
Nor is it different with regard to
the ruling of Judge Kepoikai, ex-
Guiding the rifed letters from evil
dence, as reported by you. 1t is
entirely untrue that the Judge de
cided that question without hear
ing the Deputy Attorney-General
in argument upon the point. As a
matter of fact land upon this any
one who was present in Court, and
is truthful, will sustain me), there
were two prolonged arguments
upon that point, in each of which
the counsel on either side partici-
pated in not only one, but several
speeches and when the Judge
finally announced his decision in
re, upholding a ruling made by
him earlier in the day, the topic
had been talked threadbare. ]