The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1899-06-05
THE REASONABLE EDOUBT"
A. G. M. ROBERTSON ON THE "KA-
HUKU" VERDICT.
Warmly Defends the Jury in the Riot
Case-Analyses the Testimony Ad-
duced on the Trial.

EDITOR STAR:-Desiring to avoid a
fruitless newspaper controversy over
the recent "Kahuku" trials, / allowed
certain comments thereon which ap-
peared in your paper last week, to pass
unnoticed. An article in this morning s
Advertiser, however, makes a bastard
ly attack on the jury in the riot case
and seems to require a reply The edi-
tor of the Advertiser, as well as your
self, Mr. Editor, is evidently unfamiliar
with the evidence i'm the case, as it was
adduced in court, and | may say that 1t
appears to me to be very unwise Il put
1t mildly for an editor who has not
heard the testimony given in a case. to
attack and berate a jury composed of
intelligent, honest and disinterested
men, who have listened to all the evil
dence and delberated carefully before
returning their verdict, merely because
that verdict does not conform to the
EDITORS preconceived notions of what it
ought to have been.
The Advertisers article is bristling
with inaccuracies. 1t says ION the evil
dence of a number of responsible white
and native witnesses who had no inter
est in the affair it was shown that the
Japanese were the aggressors." Neither
of the white lunas nor the native police
men who testified saw the beginning of
the trouble, and none of them knew how
ton that the Japanese planned and
prepared for an attack on the Chinese
camp was not supported by any direct
evidence in either case: the testimony
of some of their own witnesses tended
strongly to show that there was no
planned attack: the japanese denied it:
and the whole theory was repudiated
by the jury in the murder case as well
as in the riot case.
Again, THE only defense put forward
by the accused was the cock and bull
story that the murdered and wounded
Cinnamon made a sudden fierce and
murderous attack upon the Japanese
and that the latter acted in self-de-
fense." The truth is that not one of the
fourteen defendants in the last trial
claimed to have acted in self-defense.
Again, THE story is preposterOus. All
of the disinterested witnesses deny 1T"
None of the disinterested witnesses
dumas and policemen) could testify how
or by whom the fight was started be-
cause they were not present at the time
and did not arrive till some time after
wards.
Calling the theory of the defense a
cock and bull story does not make 1t
SUCH The theory of the defense, that
the quarrel began with an assault by
the Cinnamon upon the three Japanese
who went to the Chinese, unarmed and
upon a peaceable mission found sup
port in the evidence given, not only by
the Japanese but also by some of the
disinterested witnesses of the prosecu-
ton.
That mot a Jap was injured" is an
other untrue statement. Several of
them were injured.
The articles in the Advertiser as well
as those of The Star, seem to assume
that because one Japanese was con-
victed of murder and three of man
slaughter, therefore all those prosecut-
ed for riot should have been convicted
as charged. The learned editors seem
to forget that each defendants case had
to be decided on it's own merits, and
without reference to the guilt of any
other man.
Eighteen Japanese were arrested and
the examination in the District court,
the prosecution entered nolle prosequi
as to one defendant, because they were
unable to connect that man in any way
with the affair. The District magis-
trate discharged these others because
| they proved that they We're not at the
| fight at ALL Fourteen were sent up for
trial before the jury In eight of these
| cases in the Circuit court the defend
ants were connected with the fight and
| identified by a single Chinese witness
and one of them by two Cinnamon.
| These Chinese witnesses fatty contra
dicted the testimony of several of the
white lunas on important points, and
committed most palpable and flagrant
perjury before the jury. Is 1t any Won
Continued on Page 81.