The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1898-10-28

fhs fspofi made 70 usasfai Msfr
am ~ usnefai Klns on ne alsofdsfiy
onduei ~ teo military onitets On ruft
stree. " Published 10 I've san ffaa
slsro cain. and u cofrsciiy pfinisd IL
puts he matter IN a hew phsss 20 Ne
Nos W. are cutie we'll aware 81 ihs
fact that this little community no Ions
~ constitutes. az n did. several months
AGO. one ~ The nations oi the eafTh.
and ~ lar as the people are concerned.
u rated ~ a mere village. lie many
thousands ~ other American villages
And We know too that the voice Of
a little village IL generally drowned
amidst the roaring voices Of the great
communities In any appeals for JUS
tice and right In Washington Never
theless We cannot refrain from placing
on record. even for historical purposes.
N FOR nothing else. brief review of
the incident referred % In General
Kings report
In the first place, a., police author
tiles who desired to deal with the dis
orderly officers. as they had ample
power to do. were Informed by General
King that he would do all that was
necessary TO be done in the premises.
on this statement, these officers were
not arrested and charged In the Police
Court.
| The Advertiser, on the carefully pre-
pared statements of cool headed wit
nesses, believed that these officers were
guilty of conduct disorderly, and under
the circumstances grossly so. and.
yoicing the sentiment of the people,
asked that they be tried and punished.
Judge Wilcox assuming without
proof before him, that General King
did not intend to punish these Officers,
so declared from the bench. The Ad-
vertiser expressed the decided opinion,
that Judge, while ON the bench had
no right to express an opinion as to the
guilt or innocence OF the military
commandant in neglecting to do his
duty, because IL was substantially
charging him with an offense ON the
evidence of rumors only, and especial
ly without giving him the opportunity
to be heard.
II now appears from The report o!
General King to his superior officer,
which We assume Is correct, that in his
lopinion, Lieutenant Wheelock was
Igulty of disorderly conduct, and had
been remanded to his regiment but
that Lieutenant Merriam was not
drunk, and only unfortunately assert
ed that martial law had been declared.
An educated officer who declared, un-
der the circumstances, that martial
llaw had been declared was, SO far as
men may fairly Judge, either drunk
or insane.
A Judge on the bench is under sol
emn obligation to keep his mind clear
and impartial. just as every man in
sists that the minds of the jurymen,
before whom his case is to be tried,
shall be clear and impartial, and an
depression of opinion. in advance by
either Judge or jury, becomes a dis
Qualification to act in "A case about
which expression has been made.
But the press, speaking for the citi-
zen has a larger liberty, within certain
ina q
and conduct.
Relying upon what we believe to be
accurate and impartial evidence of the
conduct of Lieutenant Merriam, at the
time referred to, we feel that the re-
port exonerating him is a white
wash" We understand that the police
authorities did not prosecute this Off
Ger, because they accepted General
Kings statement as to his own honest
purpose to prosecute the offenders. II
seems, therefore, that the police auth
critics have been misled. 1t is pre-
sumed that General King did his duty
in the matter. What we term white.
wash" is. In his opinion, a judicial
declaration by the military command.
ant that this officer has committed nc
offense. Because We cannot agree with
this opinion, 1t is senseless, and undig
nified to quarrel with the author of tn,
! opinion, and charge him with improper
motives. Nothing is gained by ex.
trayagant talk.
Now the real charge against Lieute'
nant Merriam is that, while wearing
the uniform of an army officer, he was
guilty OF disorderly conduct, and, by
the force and effect of his uniform
and his declaration of martial law