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


stitution, or that the object of the
association was to prevent her doing
it contradicting, if your Honor
please, as to the methods Of his own
associates.
The evidence of the next witness,
Manuel Espinda, is that he went to
one meeting and took the oath, but
don't know what it was; he leaned
back against the wall with his hand
He was only initiating the others. /
up. "What did you do that for ? y"
think the witness was initiating the
others when he tried to falsify, but
he did not have intellect enough to
succeed in the business as well as
some of them had done.
The evidence of Mr.. Ashford now,
is delicate matter to comment
upon. am in q sort of a delicate
position in this matter. I have no
personal feelings in this matter and
no motives other than to discharge
my official duty. 1 have been on
terms of great personal intimacy
with him ever L have been in this
country; he is one of the first friends
1 made, and we have been on terms
of the greatest intimacy ever since,
but it becomes necessary in the dis
charge of my duty as Deputy Attor-
ney General in this matter to refer
to one OF two facts which, / think,
will have some bearing as to the
weight of his evidence as taken
against George Nawaakoa.
The evidence of Mr.. Ashford con-
sisted merely in general denial of
certain statements which had been
imputed to him, all of the state
ments which Nawaakoa says he
made at the meetings of the 18th
and the 25th. Mr.. Ashford totally
denies, the testimony of George Ma
waakoa but Nawaakoa's evidence
was corroborated as to both of the
meetings in which those objects
were discussed. That Hermann Ka-
ouli himself testified in substance
exactly what Nawaakoa imputed to
Colonel Ashford at these meetings
Another thing that Colonel Ash
ford says is that his impression was
very strong, in fact you might say
he was positive of it, when he says
that there were no meetings on Mon
day nights before he Went to Hilo
Your Honor will see that the meet
ing of the 18th of April was on a
Monday night, and Hermann Kaouli
and George Nawaakoa both give
the date as the 18th. The meeting
of the 25th was on Monday night,
and George Nawaakoa and Hermann
Kaouli both give the date as the
25th, so that Colonel Ashford's i'm
pressions upon the facts of the
meetings on Monday nights are
wrong. If his impressions of those
meetings, which are SO firmly fixed
in his mind, are wrong, even his
memory may be defective in other
particulars. Is it not as likely to
be defective in the rest of his testi-
mony? The Colonel has no recollection
of the dates at all, with one notable
exception, and that is the meeting
on April 9th, on which date he
says there was none.
There is another instance in which
his memory may be defective, and 1
claim is defective, as much so asis his
memory defective when he said there
was no meeting on Monday nights,
when he says there was no meeting
on the Oath and he sets up an ali
hi to show where he was that even
ing. Now, I have never read in any
law book, where the defendant
makes use of an alibi, that the pros
ecution is compelled to subpoena
witnesses to disprove it: it was to-
tally unnecessary to do SO. The de-
Tense of an alibi is n dangerous de-
Tense, and one which reacts ten
times upon the man who sets it up.
If he wishes to prove his alibi, he
should have produced these witness
es to corroborate him, but the prose-
cution had nothing to deny, because
the mere say-so of the defendant
that he was not there ON the date of
that meeting is not sufficient to ac-
quit him. do not think of anything
more, but as your Honor can see the
testimony of Col. Ashford consisted
of negative testimony, in which he
says no, no, no-that is his evidence.