The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-12-31

half OF the defendants that all cases of
illegal introduction of contraband
goods in places other than ports of
entry, come under Section $50 of the
Compiled Laws, and that consequent
ly this case should have been brought
under that law ard not under Act u,
and that the Legislature could not
have intended and did not intend to
provide by Act u for the prohibition
and punishment of that which was
already made punishable by the ear
lier statute.
Our statutes contain other instances
of repetition of this sort. One is the
case of larceny in the third and fourth
degrees, where after one statute COW
ering the subject already existed, an
other was passed, confined, however,
to certain animals and poultry, and
the object of which apparently was to
provide more severe penalty for the
Offense. 1t seems TO be that prose-
cution for the larceny of poultry
would not fail merely because it was
brought under the special, and not
under the general, statute.
In Haw., 1S7, where defendant
was indicted for having smuggle6
opium into the port of Honolulu, the
question was whether he should be
sentenced under Chapter 40 of the
Penal Code (Sec. 655, G. L. or under
Chapter 56 of the laws of 1894, which
was exactly the same as our present
Act II except as to punishment. "The
will of the Legislature NANTES tly is,
that the pecun1ary penalty" allowed
by Section 655, sis to be taken away
or abolished, and the only penalty is
to be Imprisonment" as provided by
the laws of 1874. "We are
of the opinion that this offense of
smuggling opium is punishable un-
der the first section of Chapter 56 of
the Session Laws of 1874, ami under
that alone" That is, the court holds
that the Statute of 1874, wherein the
only words used are importation"
and "i nport" covers cases of smug-
glingn Defendants admit that the
term smuggling includes the illegal
introduction of contraband goods into
ports not of entry. Section /, Act II
is au exact copy of Section l of the
Act of 1874, except as to punishment,
as above stated, and it follows, as it
seems to me, that an illegal importa-
ton into port rot of entry does con-
stitute violation of the law under
which defendants are charged.
The evidence as to the guilty knowl-
edge on the part of the defendants
Anderson and Gale, of the fact that
there was opium on board and that
there was an intention illegally to
import the same, is so clear that it
seems to me to be unnecessary 10 re-
view it.
AS to the guilty knowledge in the
others of the crew The ships papers
all show that the vessel left Victoria
on Nov. z, 1885; the Report Outward
of the same date shows that the cargo
| of "drugs," which was the schoOner's
only cargo, was then contained in %
boxes. On arrival at Keau, that car
go was found to be 5S boxes, and
broken pieces of boards were found
! lying in the hold and on deck. These.
pieces, upon some of which was Inn
pressed the official seal of the Custom
/ House of Honolulu, were recognized
! by the Customs officers as being parts
of boxes in which this same lot OF
| opium, or part of it, had been
shipped from Honolulu to Victoria
about a year ago. There was other
evidence to subsrantiate this.
The only inference that can be
! drawn is, that the twenty-five boxes
were broken open and the contents re-
packed in fifty eight boxes some tim e
during the voyage from Victoria to
Keau. No one will contend that that
change could have been accomplished
in that little vessel without the actual
knowledge of the crew. They could
not but know before arrival at keau
that there was opium en- board and
that that was the only cargo; they
I knew that the vessel was not in dis
tress, and helped TO bring her into this
out of the way port. Gale went
ashore; they waited for him day
aud night. And yet when the Off
GERS of the law came aboard, the crew
sat quietly on deck and said nothing.
1t seems TO me that all the evidence
taken together, although circumstan-.
tial, is suffi cient, unexplained as it is,
to show guilty knowledge on the part
of the crew, of the intent to land the
opium, and that the members of the
crew are criminally liable as aiders
and abettors.
The defendants are all found
guilty.
w. B. Anderson, master of the
schooner Henrietta, and {. T..
Gale, the passenger, were each sem
fenced to eighteen months i'm
prisonment at hard labor and $500
fine. Three months at hard labor
and fines of $500 each were given
the crew.
Counsel for the defendants gave
notice of appeal to the Supreme
Court on law points.
i -