The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1905, 1901-05-08

fepdaDt, proving that the oeisnnant
had been running to this port be-
tween fifteen aud twenty ysars aud
that his reputation "a a peaceable
and quiet man had nev"r heeu quet-
toned, and If defendant had been
man such as witnesses Tor the pro-
seou,ion had attempted to make
out, these witnesses for the defend
ant would have heard or known of |
it 10 thu intimate rel,tions they had
sustained toward the defendant
Tie captain testified he had never
been under arrest before in hi' lie,
theu being 40 years tf age, ard hav- |
lug followed the sea most of that
time.
Tue cabin boy testified specifically ,
10 'thrss assaults on the second day
out, while he was sessick, giving
tune OF day, place and circum-
stances of each assault. But later
on 10 his evidence he stated that he
was assaulted the second day out
but could not remember the time OF
day, whether morning or afternoon,
nor could he 8 ate how or Why the
assault came about, thus contradict
ing evidence fret giveu by him cir
eumstantially setting forth three
assaults on the day ia question.
The evidence of the captain and
officers that for some three days out
the prosecuting Witness was ses'iek
and was not able to work and did
not come 10 contact with the cap
tain, at all, or have chance TO he
assaulted, made d strong impression
on the minds OF the jury as baing
Inherently far more probable than
the story OF the cabin boy that
thougron his FIRST voyage to sea and
seasiek, hs~ had washed out the
cabin, polished the brass work, wait
ed on the table, etc, during that
period, aud for being seasick and
slow was numerically bea' en- by The
defendant.
The above simply serves to illus
trate one out Of many phases Of the
evidence, some favorable to and
some against the defendant, but the
net result was that the Jury enter
tanned strong doubts as to the story
presented by the prosecution and
gave defendant the benefit of the
doubt, az instructed by the Court to
do. The deliberations of the jury
we're cslm and dispassionate, and
they arrived at their verdict by
careful analysis nf the evidence, and
no one among them had any idea
that the verdict would be received
or interpreted as it was by the losing
side AS matter Of fact, Mr.. Baird
heard very little OF the evidence, the
csse being conducted by Mr.. Dunno,
his assistant.
So IN ich "a to'the bad faith OF tho
jury in rendering the verdict they
did.
As to the charge of disloyalty to
the Government, the jury feel that
no defense Whatsoever is necessary,
but the accusation eerves to illus
trate, however, how jauudic.d and
unfair thu smans really is, and how
reckless aud irrespnnsibls'in his ac.
cusations and arbitrary at times In
his met hods. There was no more
excuse for the charge Of bad faith
in acquitting defendant than in the
charge OF disloyalty rs to the motive
for SO doing. And thers is neither
merit nor fairness in either accuse.
ton. The maj ,rity OF the jury are
native-born American citiz ms, sew
eral being such before Mr.. Baird was
ever thought of, and one being a
member OF the Grand Atmy OF the
Republic. The balance are natural
lied citizens, against whose loyalty
nothing possibly can be urged OK
cept that fact, aud which would
prove equally sf~ctive against mil
lions Of good ami true men W ho
have adopted the United States un,
reseryedly and in absolute good
faith as their home aud country.
f. II ADAMS, ireh;s