The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-11-23
JEWEL FAIR PLAY MISSING.

Apart from all question of the .
legitimacy of its genesis the Pro- /
visional Government has in various
ways proved that its composition is
not of a higher grade than that OF, a.
very ordinary partisan concern. In
nothing more has this fact been
illustrated than in the want of I'M.
partiality with which the laws are
criminality committed by members.
of the military and police forces
have been con loned, while in public J
prosecutions there have been fire.
uuent instances where difference
has been made according to whose
OK was gored The latest instance
is given by the Holornua, being the
refusal of the Attorney-General to
allow the protection of the law of
libel to a political opponent. Fur
ther warrants are ordered not to be
issued at the sworn complaints OF
Charles B. Wilson against the editor
of the Star. This is to give immu-
nifty to that paper in its persistent
attacks on that citizen. The Star
has in a manner taken the law into
its own hands, besides violating the
tenets of legitimate journalism in
making partial comments on mat
ter that has become sub judice, by
replying to arrests of its editor for
libel with repetitions of its vindic-
tive charges against the complain
ant, each time with stronger lang
uage and more odious epithets than
before. The Attorney General knows
that every distinct publication of
libellous matter is a separate olfense,
for which the author should be an
swerable to justify or take the con
sequences. What right has he, then.
to interpose his ministerial inter
dict upon the only protection the
law allows to character, public or
private2
Another instance of gross partial
ity is given by the Holomua in the
treatment of Mr.. Kenyon, its former
editor. He was arrested for what
could only be called hypothetical
libel until the courts had decided on
the point of law involved-that is
the reprinting of criticism upon the
public acts of an official of foreign
country from a newspaper published
in his own country, and against
which it was not known that any
proceedings had been taken for the
same alleged libel. We think thai
the point in question has yet to bt
decided in the Hawaiian courts
Whether the Honolulu publication
was libellous or not, however, there
ia no reason why the editor held t(
answer for it should be treated, par
ticularly before trial face to face
with his accusers, with unusual in
dignity as Mr.. Kenyon was. He was
searched like common brawler OF
thief aud hustled into a filthy cell
"according to Instructions from
headquarters" as he was informed
officially. There he was confined
contrary to the custom invariably
followed before and since, until his
friends found bail of $500 for his ap
pearance to undergo preliminary
examination for committal or dis
charge. Since then there have beeI
several arrests of editors supporting
less offensive nature, but in not on
case has the accused been treated a
malefactor by the authorities
while in most cases not even bal
has been exacted for appearance
In the end the Government finds
has no case against Mr.. Kenyon, ant
declines to prosecute him after hold
ing him under bonds for six month
or SO.
1t would appear from these in
stances that the press law OF the l.
q, as seen in practice is on the milt
English plan for its friends, but OF
the harshest model of South Ameri
can dictatorship for its opponents
A good and strong governments
this one is claimed To be-should al
ford to be just and impartial if i
cannot be magnanimous.