The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-06-09

The Court will recall his testimony as to
compulsion brought to bear upon him,
which was not denied by Mr.. Kenyon TO
induce him to testify that arms were TO
be used in any event
What evidence is there that any OIL
these defendants assented to any oil the
language concerning force, said to have
been used by Wilcox at meetings the
avowed object OF which was to secure
equal rights for the Hawaiians? The
witness Kaouli expressly testified that
there was no talk of arms at that meet
ing which he attended. He is witness
for the prosecution. Ii the objects which
the oath refers to were legitimate, an
expression of opinion on the part OF WI
cox that he thought force would be re.
quired TO accomplish those objects, would
not imply the assent of those taking the
oath that they would assist in accom-
plishing those objects by such methods.
Ii it were so, it would be dangerous to
attend any meeting at all and listen to
any expression Of opinion as to the
methods of gaining the objects proposed.
| There is vast difference between pro-
| prosition to use force and an agreement
| to use it. Fear may come in, so
may doubt as to the probability
OF succeeding or doubt as to
the right, propriety or advantage
of SO doing They could not be bound as
asserting and agreeing to use force by
merely listening to the expression OF an
opinion like that. 1t is not like the case
of reasonable conspiracy VIII re the
avowed and agreed object is to perpe-
trate reasonable act. The proposition
made by Wilcox, if made in unequivocal
language need not be construed as hav-
ing been consented to by the other de-
PENDANTS; they might have their own
ideas, their own reasons for thinking that
other methods were not ooly right and
proper, but the only methods of gaining
their objects.
Now if the Court will consider the sug-
gestions | have made as to its duty under
the Statute, to refuse to commit these de-
PENDANTS for trial, unless satisfied that
there is reason to believe that convlc-
ton would follow on this evidence, l
cannot help thinking that discharge
would follow and might prop 3rly follow.
/ ask the Court not to hasten its decision ;
there is no public, and certainly no pri-
vate reason for a hasty decision. If
months can be taken in the considera-
ton OF civil cases, or even in some petty
criminal cases, there is no reason why
this Court should not take time for full
consideration Of every question involved
on the testimony as we'll as on the law.
| ask for earnest consideration of all this
testimony and of the Statutes which [
have adduced, and that this Court shall
not cause any OF these defendants
to be tried for their lives on
| the charge OF treason, unless it
! is satisfied that on the testimony ad-
duced, and on no other, there is reason
to believe that conviction OF treason
would follow. If the Court does not be-
lieve this result likely to follow, or that
reasonable conviction beyond reason
able doubt would be based on the testi-
mony, ask that the defendants be dis
charged.
ANOTHER ADDRESS.
Mr. Davidson, as counsel for Robert
W. Wilcox, made a forcible address to
the Court, in which he reviewed the
testimony of the prosecution, and partic-
ularly the evidence of the witness Ma
waakao. He argued that the prosecution
had failed to make out case against the
defendants, and asked for dismissal of
the charges against them.
THE PROSECUTION
Mr.. Creighton, for the prosecution,
closed the argument by analysing the
testimony for the defense. He branded
the evidence Of Markham as being I'M
true, and thought no sensible man would
believe his remarkable statement. Ash
ford and Wilcox were criticized for their
testimony in a stinging manner. He
urged the Court to commit the defend
ants for trial, as the prosecution had
made out good case.