The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1909-09-03
MAKING Eft Al.
NOT GUILTY

Maxine, Negoro and the large nun.
Der of other strike leaders who were
hailed before Judge Robinson for al.
legged violation of the temporary injunc-
tion are not in contempt of court. Judge
Robinson so decided yesterday morning
Diminishing the order to show cause and
discharging the respondents.
The decision in favor of the japanese
was because of the absolute failure of
the prosecution to make out any case.
AS Judge Robinson stated after court
had adjourned, the compliments had
only one witness whose testimony
amounted to anything, and he was very
Oahu Sugar Company and E. NJ. SEQ
plant, did not bear out the statements
made in the affidavits upon which the
order to show cause was issued
The ruling of Judge Robinson is
decided victory for Attorney Light
foot and his japanese clients, but as
Judge Robinson stated, it was not made
because the respondents were japanese
or strike leaders, but because they were
individuals the same as anybody else
and must be accorded the same treat
ment by the court.
1T was the only thing could do, "
said Judge Robinson later. "'There was
absolutely no evidence to warrant my
| finding the respondents guilty of con-
tempt of court, and | had to discharge
them. 1t makes no difference TO me
whether they are japanese or white
men. All are alike in the eyes of the
court, which must see that justice is
| 10 10 ~
possibly have violated the injunction
in some ways, but there was no evil
dence to prove it. The only witness
whose testimony amounted to anything
was Oyama, and it was plain to be seen
that he was not telling the truth. He
took the stand and swore that the pick
cts told him he would be ostracized if
he went to work. He repeated that
statement several times; then, when
Mr.. Prosser made statement to the
with physical violence, the japanese
changed his testimony and swore that
the pickets had threatened to hurt him
And he understands English.
"Mr. Bull and Mr.. Scoville in their
testimony failed to bear out the state
ments made in the afiidavits, so there
was no testimony worth anything to
show that the respondents had in any
way violated the injunction restrain
ing them from using threats, force oil
intimidation. Perhaps they did use in
timidation. If the prosecution can come
into court and prove that, j will find
the respondents guilty of contempt o
court. But IL has not been shown, an1
all | could do was to discharge the re
spondents. Every man who comes be
fore this court is entitled 10 justice, ne
matter what his nationality.
cit may be well, as Mr.. Lightfooi
claimed, that the whole fair was 1
put up job between oyama and Man
ager Bull. don't know. But IL doel
look strange that the japanese shonl1
go down that road the very day aftel
the injunction was issued and be fol
lowed by man In an automobile 4
see whether any violence were oneres
him, Aud I can I understand how suel
mass Of documents as Has prepare
by July 10 could have been prepare
after the injunction vas lssued shel
d was igsued onlY the day before, Per
Aaps SUNS ~ than NefNi AZ ls flHlmed
prepared even before the injunction
Nas granted doa know
: AZ sopn 81 tbs order disniistlne ih
order 40 fh0N cause Naf MAIDS al
count rasr liphlfaat ~ ones rushe
over anl sh0ek hands still hpgofp an
hiHHfhll 1871 ~ NE flipuif anl thor
Haa Rfnegl hHnashalInH amnpg 81
~ lapHnfff ahp SEES pIffni
iiaHlnal fahglpdt1 ~ afFHmfn
aAnY III fhn mefuInH Hna M fNiY ~
lma4a - Attorney liaHNf he fal