The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-04-04

! but sensible enough to have his state
/ mcnts believed in q matter afitctiGc
his liberty. He did not state that he
| was cogniZant Of the nature OF tdg
/ articles before they were printed.
j. Il. Castle Sworn: Am secretary
! of the Council. Subscribe for paper
/ for the Council. This lthe Hol0mua
/ is one Of them. / have had mucl
/ trouble I'm getting this paper, they
| having no regular delivery. Think /
| received this number in the ordinary
course. Think / had made ar
| raugements before this date about
| their delivery.
| Cross-examined: Can't say exactly
! where I got this paper. Remember
/ something about telephoning to them,
/ and TO Ka Leo. Can't say positively
! where | got this number. | either got
/ this number at the office or they de-
/ liveTed it. | know of my own know
| ledge that there were other copies OF
the paper of the l4th circulated. One
was brought into the Council. DON'T
| think of any others.
II. Waterhouse Sworn testified
that numbers of the issue of the 18th
| were circulated. He had bought some
at their office and seen others.
Mr.. Ashford argued that it was not
proved that the defendant had any,
thing to do with the publication of
these particular articles, nor that he
was editor of the paper on that day,
both of which must be amply proved
1t was contrary to the current of re-
cent decisions to hold an editor re-
sponsib!e for everything which appears
in paper, whether he had any know
or, f,fi 10 Ia1 haF
in this country, where there was
dual system, it could not be assumed
that the editor of the native was the
editor of the English version. My
name was placed at the head
of the English version. He
claimed there was a good defense I'M
der Act 10. 1t was entitled: An Act
relating to contempts; but the word
contempt did not occur in it. Con
temptuOus and disorderly behavior
meant in the presence of the Council.
Then it said lower in the distinctive,
''or' who should publish any false
report of the proceedings OF the Coun-
Gil; and lower down, ''Or'' insulting
comments on the same. The words
"the same" plainly refer 10 the pro-
ceedings of the Council, not to the
Council itself. But no contempt of
the proceedings of the Council is
charged, but only against the Council
self, which the Act does not make
an Offense. 1t would not be cOntended
that the reference to the Commission
erS was comment on the Council.
In the same way the statement that
the Council did not represent the peO-
pie plainly did not come within the
prohibition Of Insulting comments Oh
the proceedings of the Council. He
did not mean to say anything to in
jure the feelings of any member of the
Council. No doubt the expression re-
garding the sickIy child of the union
between the bankrupt planters and j
l. Stevens must be very offensive to
the feelings of those referred to, but
did it come WITHIN the view of the
law? He cOntended that it did not.
The same thing could be said of the
remark about the illegitimate kid
which needed extra nursing. The
bankrupt sugar planters certainly did
not mean the Council. That was not
implied. He supposed the child re
ferred to was the Provisional Govern
ment.
(Mr. Brown. Does it not rather re-
fer TO the Protectorate?)
Mr.. Ashford. | think not. The Pro-
visioDal Government is referred to
now. The Councils are not the Pro
visional Government. 1t was not the
Cpuncil which established the Protect
crate. 1t was Mr.. j. l.. Stevens. The
establishment of the Protectorate was
upon the request of the Government,
it is true, but the work was that of
Mr.. Stevens. That might seem tech
meal to laymen but the law was
science of technicalities, and this
must be satisfied before anyone could
be deprived of his life or liberty. No
doubt the articles were an Insult to
Mr.. Stevens and Captain Wiltse, but
they were not members of this Council.
AS to the last paragraph, there was
nothing in it to identify the "handful
Of bankrupt adventurers'' with the
Council. 1t seemed to him that ev-
erything in the articles taken tOgeth-
er would show the contrary. He
would suggest some reasons why the
course of the Council was not polite
The defendant was brought before
persons who were at once, judge. wit
ness and accuser. 1t behooved them
TO proceed with great caution. 1t was
not public policy to punish every in
suit to members of the Council, with
out jury or regular process of law, but
TO prevent the proceedings of the
Council from being brought into con-
tempt and paralyzed in their func-
tons If the insult had occurred right
here, it might be wise to inflict pun
ishment, but as it was, to insist upon
punishment would override many of
the highest sanctions and guarantees
IF ri.rh If (Fnnnnil
proceed with its duties, the case would
lie different, but that was not the
case. If this was libel, or Seuitious
libel, it was caused by existing stat
ute. Did the Council distrust the ad-
ministration of justice in it's own
Courts? That was dangerous admis-
sion to make and an exceedingly bad
precedent. This publication had not
injured the Council in the slightest.
1t was irrational and hys erical lam
guage and could net hurt the Council.
He submitted that the Council should
not compromise its dignity, by MOTTO
ing thing of this kind. AS a sincere
well-wisher of the Government of the
country, he would hope that it would
not lower itself by noticing publica-
tons which could not impede its iegis-
lation, or impair its authority in any
way.
The Acknowledgement in reply,
said he should not take up much
time There was no question as to
the authority of the Council. The ar
gument that the Council should not
punish for contempt but leave the
matter to the Court would imply that
the Council and the Legislature
should leave redress to the Courts.
The great reason for the exercise of
the power to publish for contempt,
was that it avoided the great delay
nther,riSn incurred The contention