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

form desire to call the especial atten-
ton of the Court as being the final result
OF all these proceedings form which
this Court, before committing these de-
PENDANTS for trial, must sign; Z" 1t APP
pearing to my satisfaction that there is
reason to believe that A. b." that is to
say V. V. Ashford, for instance, "who
was arrested for treason on the informa-
ton of" (whoever it was), would be
| convicted upon the indictment for the
said offense," and no other offense.
Then and only then the mittimus can be
| signed. This il not the procedure in
England or in the United States usually.
Defendants in criminal charges of high
crimes under that practice go before the
! examining magistrate, who, after hear
| ing the evidence for the prosecution,
commits to Jail If he thinks there is pro-
bable cause to believe the defendants
| guilty; but they have another chance,
and that is before grand jury OF twenty
| four jurors, to say whether they shall be
| put on trial for those ofenses. Now, l
ask this Court, as it has to some extent
the functions of grand jury in this mat
ter, as it has heard the testimony in be-
half of the defendants as we'll as for the
prosecution, to weigh the whole evidence
and consider whether it does fairly and
honestly believe that on that evidence,
and no other, there is reason to believe
that jury would convict any one OF
these defendants OF the crime of treason
by plotting to dethrone or destroy the
Queen. The Court must consider whe-
ther on all the testimony there is or is
not fair, reasonable and proper ground
for reasonable doubt, and if there is rea-
sonable doubt, based on all the testi-
mony, is not this Court bound to express
that opinion, and refuse to commit these
defendants for trial? The burden is not
upon the defendants to prove that they
did not commit the offense of treason
the burden is upon the prosecution to
show it beyond reasonable doubt
Take the evidence of the defendant V.
V. Ashford, in which he states OH cross
examination that he attended no meet
ing on the Oath OF April that there was
no meeting held; that between and s
o'clock he went from his hotel to DR..
Miners, and from there to house which
he mentioned on Young street; he men
toned who were there; who accom-.
panied him part way home that evening
about 10 O'Clock. 1t was incumbent on
the Government to discover from the
three witnesses named by him whether
this was SO, and not for the defendant to
make out that portion of the case, be-
yond a reasonable doubt. The Govern
ment failed to do this. What is the
inference? Either they thought that the
evidence would corroboTate the state
ment, or else that they would trust to
the case going to the jury, keeping back
material evidence from this Court. Ii
the evidence of Y. V. Ashford was true,
then the evidence OF the witness Nawaa-
koa was false in which he says that with
in an hour after meeting on that even
ing OF the oath OF April he went to his
room and wrote the statement which is
before the Court, in which he says V. V.
Ashford spoke of an attack on the Pal
ace, and of sending for pistols. His
whole testimony, not only of that even
ing but of all other meetings in which he
spoke of reference to the use of arms and
using force would be discredited. No I'M
prejudiced person who believes that he
made up that written statement about
the meeting on the Oath of April, would
| for one moment believe that he told the
truth when he spoke of Wilcox's using
language that he said he used about guns
or force at any other meeting. If he
manufactured that statement, he GER
tainly not only could but did manufac-
ture good deal of the other evidence
intended to damage these defendants.
Again, the evidence for the prosecu-
ton as well as for the defense is that the
object of this league was to obtain equal
rights--a perfectly legitimate object.
There was testimony in regard to de-
sire to obtain republican form of gov
ernment-also legitimate object, If the
koI - srt,
lawful. There is no evidence that V. V.
Ashford was at the meeting on the 9th of
May, which the Court mentions as one of
the two meeting in respect of which
there was damaging testimony concern
ing the defendants. The only evidence
against him necessarily of a criminal ma
| ture is that which is referred to on the
18th of April.
Now, in regard to the methods that
were to be used to accomplish the objects
of the organization in the early part of
April. The administering OF the oath to
keep the secrets of the association, de-
claring that the punishment of not so
doing should be death, is not criminal.
Placing sentries at the door, is not GRIM
inal. The swearing in of new recruits
did not make them soldiers. Dividing
| the organization into squads does not
imply any military character. The SAL
walton Army illustrates very we'll what /
mean. Take the language, even if it
were used by any OF the defendants, of
an intention to furnish arms, there is no
reason to infer from their expressing
such intention either that they had done
50, or that if they did furnish arms they
were to be used for unlawful purposes.
The prosecution have omitted to pre-
sent one shred of testimony on that sub
ject. If it were not for the testimony Of
some of the witnesses for the prosecution
as to the statements made by Wilcox,
that it was "most certain that arms
would have to be used" etc., this Court
could not fairly say on the testimony
that the other acts of any of these defen-
| dants were Of a criminal nature, or that
they would tend to show that any of
the defendants were plotting to dethrone
the Queen. Now, if the objects have been
clearly defined by the evidence of the
defendants, and those objects appear to
have been somewhat confused in their
own minds, whether to prevent the pro-
mitigation OF the old Constitution, or to
obtain a new Constitution with equal
rights, or both objects; and there is no
reason to doubt that those objects were
in the minds of these defendants, or of
some of them, why should the Court in
fer that they intended to accomplish
those objects by force ? One witness,
Hermann Kaouli, testified that at the
| maefinp which he attended If waa said