The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1892-06-08

alleged Jalk OF 1OTCe NY w lCOA! One
said he only heard talk about new
constitution among members outside
of the meeting.
The Court-Mr. Hartwell, don't
you regard the oath AS consent?
Mr.. Hartwell--Not as to illegal
methods of accomplishing the objects.
Ii that was law it would be very
dangerous, for it would make it dan
gerous to attend a meeting and listen
to speaker advocating illegal
methods of gaining what might be
proper objects. He submitted that
the Court must be satisfied that con-
viction before a jury would follow on
this evidence. He would ask that
the Court would not hasten its deci-
sion, but take days and days If neces-
sary to weigh every point in this case.
The speaker referred to the presiding
Justices great respect for the princi-
Piles OF law, and said that long after
Ashford, Wilcox and himself returned
to dust, and Hawaiian constitutions
were forgotten, these principles would
|
he had stated these principles cor
rectly or not. He trusted that a
complete examination of the evidence
would result in the discharge of
everyone Of the defendants.
Mr.. Davidson followed, contending
there was no evidence Unreasonable
plotting. Nawaakoa was referred 10
as one who had not shown anything
for his salary as preserver of The
peace. Counsel argued at length
that the evidence failed III any re-
spect to sustain the charge. He spoke
of the Hawaians as dwindling away
day by day, and their desire for
equal rights being commendable.
Criminal statutes had not that elias.
ITCHY to permit things to be made
criminal which were not criminal by
reasonable Interpretation. There was
no treason without an overt act. If
Nawaakoa's testimony was false in
one particular, 1t was unreliable in
every part.
Mr.. Hartwel again asked the
Court to take all the time it wanted.
Never mind the interests of the de.
PENDANTS as in confinement. They
were willing TO stay there fortnight
rather than have the Court hurried.
II was not even asked that the Court
set aside other business.
Mr.. Creighton observed in closing
for the prosecution that at the close
of first counsel's address he did not
intend to refer to what was obviously
the glaring falsehoods of witnesses
for the defense. But as the gentle.
man who had followed had chosen tc
vilify Nawaakoa, saying he did not
know how he earned his living, he
should change his intention. AS the
law points had been decided already
he should contne his address to tn,
evidence. Counsel argued the alb
surdity of the testimony of the frs
witness for the defense, and took NJ
next that of George Markham. He
ridiculed this defendants great con
Germ for upholding the Constitution
and preventing the Queen from doing
an illegal act. 1t did not neet
Nowlein's evidence to prove thai
Markham deliberately lied. The
speaker urged that the witnesses TO
the defense failed entirely to zorro
borate each others evidence, while
Nawaakoa's evidence was corrobor
ated by it in every particular excep
as to reasonable language. V. V
Ashford was one Of his oldest friend
in this country, but it was necessar,
to refer to some facts regarding hi
testimony. This defendant SAT-
there was no Monday night meeting
before he went to Hilo, but it wa
fully established by several witnesses
that there was meeting on a pre-
vious Monday evening. Mr.. Ashford
!, attempted to show an alibi, whicl
was dangerous defense. VIII,
didn't he bring the men he spent tina
!. evening with, to prove he was not a
a meeting? There was nothing in hi
testimony except general dena
that he used reasonable language
The same was to be said of Wilcox
teolituOIJ, WHICH WAS lu'hinS VI
slightest confederation. This Cour
; was not trying these defendants, bu
finding il there was probable caus
for their conviction by jury. Whe
> Ashford boldly swears that he wa
not at certain meeting, and severa
witnesses swear he was, did the Cour
not think jury would decide on sue
testimony for the prosecution? Th
!. defense bad proved nothing, bu
merely said, "We didn't do IL.
. They were in the same position a
= they were in when The Court dismiss
ed the motion for their discharge
Every one of the defendants shout
!, be committed for trial. The prose
y cution had made out good case fo
= committal. 1t was serious questio
for the defendants, for the Govern
: ment, for the very foundations of I'll
J throne. He considered il was for I'll
Q public interest that decision shoul
- be reached as early as possible.
y Mr.. Hartwell claimed that q sepal
y ate document should be made out b
- the Court, for either the commits
= or the discharge of each defendan
= Mr.. Creighton took issue with th
% view, claiming the right of the prose