The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1892-06-10

Dole rendered his final decision in
the treason examination. He COM
mitted Wilcox and five Others, and
discharged Ashford and five others.
The following is the full text of the
decision.
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian ISL
ands. Before Dole, j., AT Cham
bers. Examination for com.
initial.
Regina vs.. V. v. Ashford, R. w.
Wilcox, Keliikuewa, j. w. Bipikane,
Lot Lane, Kaimimoku, r. Palau, G.
Maxwell, Manuel Ross, Jr., j.
Brown, G.. Markham, Kaohiwaena.
In my last decision in these pro-
ceedings, filed June 6, ruled that
all the defendants who were shown
by more than one witness to have
been parties to either of the meetings
of April l8 or May were liable un
der the charge as the case then
stood. have since then given con-
siderable thought to this conclusion,
as regards the meeting of April IS.
At that meeting the inculpatory evil
dence was in substance as follows:
Nawaakoa-Object as stated by
Wilcox-equal rights, how to get
them leave to by-and-by or as the
majority of the council decides, but
it is most certain to have 20 use
bayonets. Some were advised to buy
guns by Wilcox. The committee
will in some way try to obtain them
for those who cannot buy them.
At the present time we can't get
equal rights, as the Bolabola is at the
head and he is fool. Took in and
swore new members.
Herman Kaouli-Heard about new
constitution from talk among mem.
bers' meeting. Ashford and Wilcox
didn't say anything about new con-
stitution, but that the way to succeed
is TO provide ourselves with guns.
/ The way to get equal rights is to pro-
vide ourselves with arms. Didn't
know the use TO which the arms were
to be put.
Benito Guerrero-We were told
that we would fight for equal rights.
Wilcox said of course we can't get
any of these equal rights without
fighting for them. There was some
talk about new constitution the
only way we can obtain it is to fight.
The charge now relied on is plot
ting or attempt to dethrone or des-
TROY the Queen. Certain of the de-
PENDANTS who were present at this
meeting were not present at the
meeting of May 8, in which the ex-
preston was definitely directed to-
ward revolution by force in favor
of republican form of government.
Now, although there may be evidence
upon which jury might convict
those who were at the meeting of
April IL, but were not at the meet
ing of the 9Th of May, of con-
spiracy to levy war against the
Queens government, il is very
doubtful to me if jury on the evi.
dence would convict them of a plot
ting or attempt to dethrone or des.
troy the Queen; for, under the pecu.
liar features Of our civil institutions,
it does not appear to be an impossi.
BILE or even an unlikely thing that
war should be levied against the gov.
eminent, with an entire absence OF
any conspiracy to dethrone or to
destroy the king. This was in par,
what took place in 1887 and the in.
surrection of 1889 was an attempt in
the same direction; though in boti
of these movements the continuance
Of the king in his official position was
doubtless understood to be depend
ent upon his recognition of the OBJ
jects of the revolutionists.
| A conviction OF these men of the
charge against them would only bt
supported upon the inference thai
the league at that date, April IS
was engaged in plot to dethrone oil
destroy the Queen, but there is M
direct evidence of the existence o
such a plot before the meeting ol
May 8, unless we take the discussit I
of the meeting of April "a, in regaro
to the time of making the attack OF
the Palace, to be such evidence, blu
of this meeting there is but one wit
ness. 1t cannot he confidently con
Guided but may be duly inferred
from the evidence, that on the l8tl
of April the conspiracy had contem
plated the overturn of the govern
ment in favor of republic. 1t doe
not seem to me that jury ought t,
convict of serious charge upon sucl
an inference.
1t might also be argued that levy
ing war against the government in
volved plot against the Sovereign
but think that have shown abov
that this 10 not necessarily so.
therefore desire to modify my forme
decision in its reference TO those O
the defendants who were parties I
the meeting of April Is, but wer
not parties TO the meeting of May 8
1 feel that there is not probabl
cause to believe that jury woul'
convict these men of the offense @
treason by plotting or attempt I
dethrone or destroy the Queen upo
the evidence adduced.
In regard To the case as TO the res