The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-12-29


the case of the United States VS.. w. c. |
Peacock prompt me to give a state
ment of the facts, in order that no mis- |
apprehension may exist as to my
position.
Prior to my becoming a citizen of
the United States 1 believed myself to
be British subject, but was advised
by counsel that serious doubts had
been raised on the question under the
Organic Act, and that my status was
not clear.
My answer to the charge was:
"He 1.-THE defendant) denies that at
the time of taking the oath aforesaid,
if in fact he took the said oath, he, the
said defendant, knew, although he
supposed himself to be, a subject or
citizen of foreign power"
l can hardly be expected to make a
decisive reply on legal question,
where the opinions Of counsel differ,
and my answer was made honestly and
without any intention OF introducing
sham or evasive element, and 1 ven
ture to assert, without for a moment
questioning the decision of Judge Estee
upon the law, that, as understood by
ordinary business men, it was neither.
AS to the oath / am charged with
taking, I have never had a copy of
the document, and have no present
means of inspecting it.
Messrs. Fitch & Highton have ap-
piled to the collector of customs for an
| opportunity to examine it, but the ap-
plication was refused and my attor-
| neys are consequently unable to show
me its exact terms.
l am therefore not in a position pos
| itively to affirm or deny the charge,
| so far as the contents of the oath are
concerned, and l stated explicitly as
| follows:
THAT the said paper may be the
oath mentioned and averred in said
petition, but as to whether it is or
no, or of the actual contents of said
paper, this defendant has no knowl-
edge, although he is Informed and be-
lieves that the said paper and the
oath so averred in said petition are
| identical"
The oath was taken by me, if at all,
hastily and without any consciousness
of its contents; it certainly was not
read to or by me, the question of cit
| izenship was not mentioned, and had
not the remotest idea that l was rep
resenting myself as an American cit
izen.
Between the date of the alleged oath,
July 2, 1902, and the date of the COM
plant eighty-two days had elapsed,
and in the meantime the Julia E.
Whalen, after l had been formally
naturalized and had transferred the
vessel to the Marcus Island Guano
Company, had been advertised for sale
at public auction and the Marcus Island
Guano Company was allowed to dis
pose of the vessel without any intima-
ton whatever that the collector of
customs intended to charge me with
any irregularity.
On September % last, when the title
to the vessel was transferred to the
purchaser, l was first challenged, and,
apparently, the collector waited until
the moment arrived when 1 could be
put to the greatest annoyance and,
possibly considerable expense, if his
refusal to permit the transfer had been
upheld.
Immediately called upon the United
States attorney, Mr.. Breckons, who de-
cided that the transfer should be al
lowed, and so advised Mr.. Stackable.
1 asked for permission to have my
written explanation of the circum-
stances under which 1 acted in the
matter of the registry sent forward to
the solicitor of the Treasury, together
with the complaint. but this request
was refused.
| On November II last, Mr.. stackable
sent word to me that if 1 would call
upon him at the custom house matters
might be so arranged that the court
proceedings could be quashed, but ]
declined to do SO, the case being then
in the hands Of the United States at.
torney.
Ny act in signing the oath, if in fac
l did without reading IT was care
J less, bur olutely innocent of any