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


that? is that sufficient evidence
in the mind of an impartial jury
upon which they would say that
Geo. Nawaakoa falisified, when he is
corroborated by his own written
memoranda, taken at the time, and
corroborated by Herman Kaouli, and
corroborated by others. Was he tel
ling an absolute falsehoodp was he
deliberately perjuring himself9 had
he worked one of the most gigantic
and elaborate schemes of perjury
that has ever been presented to the
Court? A jury would not for one
moment hesitate upon their verdict
upon such evidence as that. Another
thing is this, that the defendant
stands alone in his declaration. Geo.
Nawaakoa was present, Geo. Mark
ham was present, r. w. Wilcox was
present, Hermann Kaouli says the
same thing. Mr.. Wilcox and Mr..
Markham, who we're there present,
and understand English, could cor
roborate Ashford in his declaration,
but not one word from them on the
subject. He stands alone in the dec
laration, when there were present
two who understand English as well
as I do.
The last witness, Mr.. Wilcox, is
in exactly the same boat. The
only thing is this, that he lost his
temper to some extent upon exami-
nation and said a great deal more
than counsel intended he should
say. His testimony stands alone
also, and he denies using certain
words, which were testified to by
George Nawaakoa, Charles Warren
and Kaahu, as having been used.
Three witnesses have testified that
Wilcox did use them, ahd he comes
in here and asks to be discharged
for simply saying, 81 did not say it.,
they lie!" Mr.. Wilcox also denies
the whole case made out by Nawaa-
koa, but he does not corroborate
Mr.. Markham us to the object of the
association being to prevent Her
Majesty from doing an illegal act,
and to enforce upon Her Majesty
the necessity of upholding the laws
and the Constitution of this land,
Is the fact that they bound them
selves by oath to prevent the Sover-
eign of this Kingdom from doing an
illegal act corroborated by Mr.. Will
COX? l say no. Mr.. Wilcox admits
himself that the meetings were Sc
cret, he say they were not very Sc
cret. But is there anything here
that corroborates Mr.. Wilcox's testi-
mony? Nothing whatever, that your
Honor can see. His evidence remains
standing out completely by itself,
a simple denial of what has been tes-
titled to by three competent and in
telligent witnesses.
Now in this case, your Honor is
not sitting in the capacity of "a jury
to pass upon the guilt OF innocence
of these men, your Honor is sitting
here to say whether there is proba-
bic cause to believe that these men
would be convicted before O jury.
And 1 ask you where the defendant
says, "No, L did't do it," but three
men swear that he did, is that not
sufficient in your Honor's mind to
induce you to believe that convio-
ton would take place before juryi
Is not that sufficient, l might put it,
to more than warrant your Honor
in committing these men for trial at
the Supreme Courts next term? Is
not that such case that more than
warrants sending him for trial be-
fore jury, and I claim if there is
evidence in this case to commit Mr..
Ashford or Mr.. Wilcox or either one
of them, then there is evidence here
for trial every individual member OF
this association who is here charged.
If Mr.. Wilcox is guilty of these
intentions under the law of treason
and conspiracy, Mr.. Ashford is guilty
and the other defendants are guilty.
dole, j.: What distinction is there
between the status of those who are
taken to have been at the meeting
of the 9Th and the othersD l have
to say that the meeting of the Sth
of May WAS one of a series of acts.
The charge of plotting, the conspir-
acy, as / have argued here, is not
that they committed treason on the
18th of May, nor that they commit