Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1909-08-12
SPIRIT, ABSOLUTELY UNWAR-
RANTED AND UNJUSTTFIED, as
Editor Smith knows?

NAN Ell AND UNJUOIIfIED, as
Editor Smith knows?
Is there no way that the
Advertiser could have dealt with
that question and lent its aid
to cure such a feeling, and
at the same time not interfere with
the fair conduct of any trials that
might have been pending?
What thinks the reader of the
plea from this apostle of fair trials,
who, in the conduct of his newspa-
per. has allowed these perverted views
to go unchallenged where he knew
that the law was likely to fare bad
ly?
Evidently the position of the edi-
tor, confessed from his own mouth.
is that he saw and cheerfully al
lowed this dangerous feeling, enter
tanned by a large number of citizens.
TO Turk its way into the jury lists
and into the jury boxes, and kept
his mouth shut, all, forsooth, to
procure fair trials! Out upon such
hypocrisy!
II a sense of duty kept Editor
Smiths mouth shut while he saw this
dangerous spirit and foolish sentiment
stalking at large, before the attempt
ed assassination of Sheba, why, in the
name of common sense. did he en-
danger fair trials by stepping in C.:
August 4th, while the conspiracy case
was proceeding, and the defense need.
ed fair trial, and when the court
had prohibited any mention Of the cir
cumstance, and make the following ed.
itorial comment:
But every thoughtful and hon
est man belongs on but one side
when the red hand of murder is
invoked, and that is on the side Of
law and order, the side which de.
mands that. whatever becomes of
the strike, the instigations Of vio-
lence shall cease. and that the
malefactors at bay, those who in
cite to crime as well as those
who commit 1t, shall suffer the
penalties they have earned"
This language would be sufficient to
authorize the court to cite Mr.. Smith
to be punished for jeopardizing the
fair and impartial trial of Negoro and
his co.patriots.
Why did Mr.. Smith speak at all?
Why speak August 9Th II not before,
and II you had right to speak then,
why not before?
1t required red-handed murder to
shock you into more creditable frame
of mind. II II was right on August
4th while the conspiracy trial was on
to declare that every thoughtful and
honest man belongs but on one side
when the red hand of murder Is in.
voked," why was II not right earlier to
declare In your paper that Every
thoughtful and honest man belongs but
on one side, whether 1t be murder that
is invoked or any other breach of law
end order" and that anti.plantation
animus cut no part in such an issue.
You claim that the Bulletin has
misquoted you and has twisted your
words away from their proper connec.
ton. etc. When and In what respect
has this been done? That is mere
defamation on your part.
Meanwhile, we ask the reader, where
do you think the editor of the Adver.
tiser is today In the matter of these
trials?
Are the stabs, inuendos and insinu.
ations made against the prosecution In
the conspiracy case. contained In his
paper OF today, born merely of his
spite against the Bulletins attack,
or is It merely bringing to the surface
what was in his heart before?
With the individual Walter G. Smith
we have no concern. But with that
individual holding the helm of the
one morning paper Of this Territory
We have every concern. AND THE
PUBLIC HAS EVERY CONCERN. It
Is what he did at the helm of that
paper that is being criticised. ..
1t Is the fact that Sticky, smugly
and with the utmost tact he watched
the prosecution drifting on the reef OF