Newspaper Page Text
T II i; P 0 L V N KSIAN.
and that he is acting in accordance with the
designs of the government.
Mr. Brown. I wish you to inform him
that that is not the question, hut he most ad
vise them that they have no right to inter
rupt me when I am addressing him. I'ut j
that as plainly as you can. !
Mr. Judo. The (Jovernor requests trie I
to say that His Majesty has appointed me to
assist him and if yon t! eat me with disrespect j
vou disrespect him.
Mr. Brown. I wish yon to tell him J
mean no disrespect. Am I to have my
Mr. Jt;it. Vou are not to he interrupted:
when I said to the (ioveruor don't interrupt.
Mr. Booardus. 1 tho't you said dont vpea!:.
Mr. Jutm repeated the explanation he hud
Mr. Brown. This extraneous matter hav
ing been done with, let us go on with the
ease. According to the decisions 1 have
been told of as being the law of tins court,
he has a right to put away every foreigner
and put only the names of those who have
taken the oaths of allegiance to His .Majesty.
Ask him if that would ho according to the
intention of the Hawaiian laws ? Ask him
where would foreigners have their remedy?
Their laws say foreigners shall he on the
jurys. The object of this law was that fo
reigners should have fair play; that they
should have foreigners in their jury who not
only knew them, but had interest in them.
That it is considered by all civilized nations
when a man takes an oath of allegiance to
any sovereign, he becomes a part ami parcel
of that kingdom. That it is not color which
makes a man. 1 would place as much con
fidence in one of his (the Governor's) own
countrymen as I would in any one who has
taken the oath of allegiance.' That I have
so much confidence in him that I would trust
him with a case of nunc as quick or quicker
than I would some of the naturalised for
eigners, picked up from (gutters), the (pur
lieus of) streets and vessels some of them !
That it is principle which induces me to de
mand this. That 1 know of no one on the
jury that I would object to in common cases,
but it is from principle that I object in this
case. Now 1 wish you to say to the (Jover
nor, that in regard to the decision in the
other case, I have seen no foundation for
any decision that he made. I saw only that
bo and so was the case, but I saw it founded
on uo law of this country, of European coun
tries, or of the United States. I want to
know upon what grounds that decision was
made. If it was made upon his own ipse
dixit, very well ! 1 wish you to ask him
how a man can be in two situations ? How
can a man be a foreigner and a native or
denizen ? How can he be two things at
once ? If that is the case, ask him lio.v it
would be if one of those subjects of his Ma
jesty were taken up to he tried, what jurv
they would be entitled to ? They also would
be entitled to a jury of foreigners. They
owe allegiance to this government; they owe
allegiance to the laws of this goverment;
they prepare to be governed by those laws
when they take the oath of allegiance; they
are entitled to be tried by Hawaiian subjects
and not foreigners. When a man takes the
oath of allegiance in the United States he is
considered in every respect an American
citizen. That when a man takes an oath
of allegiance to K'umehamcha the third, he
becomes an Hawaiian subject : his interest
his feelings, every thing makes him Hawaii!
an. He is bound by his oath to look out
for the interests of the King )f the Ha
waiian Islands against the interest of all
the world besides. Now let me presume
a case. Here is a man under the law of
treason, a man who commits treason aaii st
the King of the Sandwich Islands. He is
brought up to be tried for that treason ac
cording to the law of the Sandwich Mum!-
and not according to treaties made with
Urcat Britain. That man would he entitled
to a jury of half natives and half foreigners
the king being a native and the defendant
a foreigner. And how would that man
have a lair trial according to the (iovernor's
decision, that the jury shall consist of Hu.
wauans, how I say could that man have a
fair trial ? Tell him in the present state of
feeling here, as far as we can see by news
papers and other things, I think everv
American would prefer in a ease of treason
or murder, or in any case where his interests
were concerned, trusting himself to a whole
jury of natives than to have half of then, of
those foreigners who have taken the oath
of allegiance. Now I want nothin.r but jus.
Jice. I don't want to interfere with their
jaws. I want them carried out in spirit and
letter. I find every Hiintr I want in the
written or rather published law of this land;
and unless they are carried out in the full
spirit of the laws, I shall protest against him
and the Government, Jo!tjI)!; tl0m rL.s)rillSi;
ble for all damages that mav accrue to the
defendent in thi$ case. I shall not consider
that he has had a fair trial. (.1 pause )
Ask him whether he dccidcslhat .Mr. Rhodes
shall be sworn? Ask him.
Mr. .Ji ii. The decision of the case was
read because it was akcd for; the decision
will remain the same nlh Mho argument.
Mr. Brown. That appears to jM. M. ,,.
derstauding, that the decision should be
given first, and the argument take place
afterwards. 1 waist to know after arguing
tin; case whether the (Jovernor is still i'
the same opinion as he was before when he
declared his decision about the jury?
Ma. Jrii. .My decision (ho says) is that
they aic 1 1 aoi.ks, hut not aliens; nor are
they natives. (Jentleiiwii that have, been
called on the jury, will you step this way.
Mis. Bi;o. I wish you to inform the
(Jovernor that 1 protest against Mr. (Jodfrev
Rhodes being on this jury. And 1 wish that
protest to be entered in' the records of this
court. 1 u ish it recorded.
-Mis. Rii ior.-j. May enquire the reasons?
Mr. Brow Mer'ek bemuse vou have
i.tM'it llie onM-ot allegiance.
is. l!i(.o!!i. Th'-ro should I
io no i is-
cussi )ii of this kind with the jurors, j
Mis. Hi. own. 1 wish you to understand
it is a question of law, nf of feeling. Has
Mr. Austin taken the oalh of allegiance?
Mis. At vn. Xo, I have pot.
Air. Brown. Has .Mr. Kemloi's?
Mr. Rr.NnoM.s. Xo, sir.
Mr. .Ji -n:. Have you any further objec
tions to these jurvnien?
Mis. Buown. None other that I know of.
Mr. Brown then asked the jurymen severally
il they had formed any opinion, and being
answcied in the negative, said then he had
Mis. Brown. 1 have made the only ob
jections that I wish to make; that to Mr.
Rhodes. (The Governor then administered
the onth to Godfreu Rhodes. K. II. Uoardman,
II. IV Wood, Gan-gc Pilly, Thomas li.
Reudds, and James .lusiin.)
Mu. Ji no called on Mr. J. R. von Rfister,
Dr. T. (.:. B. Rooke. .Mr. .James Makce,
Mr. Daniel R. True, Mr. John Ladd, Mr.
i. C (Jray, Mr. William Baker, jun. (Dr.
T. C. li. Roole, not presvnt )
Mis. Brown. I object to Mr. von Blister,
as owing allegiance to this (Jov't, and being
an otlicer of his Majesty Kami hameha III.
Mn. von Rri.vrr.u, May I ask, Mr. Brown
if those are the only reasons? Was 1 one
of those picked up in a gutter?
Mr. J i Di).-Are you an oilicer?
Mr. von Bi istcr. I am.
Mii.Bisow.N.-Areyou not a Secy toDr.Judd ?
Mr. von Bfistkr. I am.
Mr. Brown. It appears you arc clerk to
one of the Judges in this court.
MR.Jfii).-(iive me the names, ifyou please,
Mr.Brown.ofthose against whom on protest?
Mr. Brown. On account of his being a
subject of Hawaii, and of his being a clerk
to one of the Judges in this court, 1 ob
ject to Mr. von Blister.
Mn. vov Pi -isthu. 1 am not a clerk to
any one in this couit.
Mr. Brown. I was not aware before that
there were Tiusr.r. Judges. Mr. (Jrav, have
you taken the oath of allegiance'? Mr.
Wood? Mr. Ladd? Mr. True?) The gentle
men addressed answered.) I also object to
Mr li. ('. (iay, on account of his having
taken the oath of allegiance, and not being
a foreigner according to the Hawaiian laws
It may become necessary, since I have been
asked the question by two very respectable
men, Messrs. Rh ('cs and von Blister, win til
er 1 intended to briny them in, in a remark
I made, to explain my meaning. I will relate
a single circumstance which led me to make
that remark. One of the missionaries in
formed me that a short time since a person
came to be married. Jle asked him if he
had taken the oath of allegiance. Jle paid
'yes, he had been in a vessel ami did. not
want to go out again till r.et fall, and he
took the oath to get a wile.' There is a
sample! 1 don't wish to include Mr. Rhodes
and Mr. von Rlbtcr, or any others who have
joined the (Government with the best motives
in the world. But drunken sailors who are
known to have joined it, 1 do consider as
coining under the category of those picked
up in the streets.
Mn. vox BnsTF.it. I know Mr. Brown has
said: If you want to marry or make money,
take the oath.
Mis. Brown. deny it. It is an infamous
lie ! Whoever says so tells an infamous
lie! Hire Mr.' Jitdd JnUrrupled. I
have been accused and have a right to
complain. There is not a single individual
to whom I ever gave the ndice but Mr.
Thompson. He came to mo and I expi esscd
the, opinion that it might bo to his advantage
to take the oath. 1 Jaid, however, 'you
know best.' Other persons have come to
me, and I said, ' I have uo opinion to give:
do as you please. 1 have nothing to do in rmc
way or the other.' Whoever denies that, ex
presses an infamousiic'! I did adviscMrThomp
son, because I tho't he was illy and infamously
treated. ( 7' he (Joniiiweil.)
omciAT. Jnui7t. nr'ni: .nr.tM.v
HONOLULU, SATUHPAY, MAKCII 22, VMo.
In Mr. Brown's remarks which we pub
lish to day in the cave of ("Jray, we find that
the exception he makes to naturalized for
eigners sitting upon juiies in cases which
arise between foreigners is the principal top
ic. The grounds upon which he makes this
exception are not clearly given, for iu one
part of his speech he remarked, "1 think ev
ery American would prefer in a case of trea
son" i how can an alien commit treason n
gainst this gov't?) "or minder, or in any case
whore his interests wen: concerned trust
ing himself to a whole jury of natives than
to have half of them of those foreighers who
have taken the oath of allegiance." And
yet immediately after he says. " it is a ques
tion of law and not of1 -ling." Xow to our
faculties, the imputation cast up. on " those
foreigners who have taken the oath of alle
giance" that they have so far imbibed ha
tred to their born brethren, that not only.their
property but lives would be endangered by
them, even under the sob inn safeguard of a
jury trial, indicates a great deal ol'J'nTwg and
very wicked tiding also. These sentiments
we trust are confined to Mr. Brown. They
are upon a par with the remark he made iu
regard to every juryman, viz : that for the
purposes of the court, the government today
made them foreigners ; they were perfectly
safe while they sut in those chairs, but to
morrow if they committed an oll'cnee .they
would be hung up without law or gospil. He
further remarked that there were no laws
here ; ('very thing was heller sl.etUr, the
judges put Mich interpretations upon the stat
utes as they chose, and that no foreigner
was sale under such a system. We leave it
to the good sense of the hearers of these sen
timents and of our readers, whether by such
opinions delivered in the emphatic manner
of of Mr. Brown, and in permitting his exci
ted feelings to get the better of both truth
and reason he acted in the true spirit of olli
Again we find him repeating that he would
sooner trust a case to a jury of natives and
expressing a confidence in obtaining an hon
est and legal verdict from them, when it
would be impossible from a jury of white
Ilawaiians. We are pleased to find that
his opinion of the natives has changed for
the better, for in his letter to the Secretary
of State of Sept 10th. ult., we find him stat
ing, " there are nd tnouzh naliris of sidjuient
knowledge and acijuirtiucnls !o sit upon (a) ju
ry." This opinion was given in arguing a
gainst even a half jury of sir ; but jl how
seems that at least twelve may he found ca
pable of giving even to him, an impartial
verdict. This is a gratifying acknowledge
ment from one in his high station, and so lit
tle disposed to look favorably upon the ef
forts of this petty kingdom. But amidst
these conflicting opinions we find him stren
uously asserting that his side objections to
the men of the class he refers to, is solely
one of principle, arising from the wording
of the statute on the fort.iati-m of juries, and
not because he considered them in any way
less qualified than their former countrymen.
This then we shall take to be the point at is
sue, unless he can demonstrate that, the pro
cess of naturalization destroys the moral and
intellectual identity of a man, and entirely
unfits him ever after of judging of questions
of which he was before perfectly competent.
But it is not to be presumed that cither he
or any of his followers will succeed in this.
At all events, naturalized Hawaiian have
as full confidence in the honor and acquire
ments of their native country men now as be
fore, and would scorn to impute to them the
least shade of delinquency, because they
may not it expedient to follow their -nmplc.
Any attempt to influence juridical
decisions on the ground of nationalhy is
deserving of the strongest reprobation." It
is.wholly adverse to the practice and doc
trines of the courts of this country, and he
who insinuates n charge implying this is e
qually as guilty as the judge would bo who
would connive at the attempt.
" If the accuser and the accused be both
foreigners, then the jury shall be made up of
foreigners only" says the statute on which
Mr. Brown founds one of his objections.
Several points are necessary to be ascer
tained in order to get at the real meaning of
J-'iit, what is the common signification
of foreigners?" Second, what is the
meaning of the word in the view of the law?
And, third, do those interpretations con
flict with each other, and in what particular?
Do they agree, and if so, is their joint mean
ing applicable to the intention of the statute
and agreeable to the common sense of man
kind? The word M foreigner," and more par
ticulailv that used in the Hawaiian law,
' hnale" is the opposite of " native." Ac
cording to Webster, Walker, Fuller, and
ICnight, and in short to all philologists, the
first means, person horn in aforiign coun
try, or without the country's jurisdiction of
which one sjtcaLs." The latter is the con
vene of this, " born within, &e. These two
terms, "fouigner" and "native," divide
mankind into two great classes. A man can
be the native of but one country. To all
others he is a foreigner, and he can never
vary this distinction by any mental nor phy
sical process. Like the color of his skin
it clings to him through life. But although
this results from circumstances over which
he has no control, yd as men's desires or
necessities impel them to wander ami to
leave the place of their birth, the law has,
among civilized nations, provided a method
of removing the disqualifications which at
tend foreigners, and without changing their
characteristic of " persons born w ithout the
country," it gives them the privileges and
imposes upon them tiie duties of natives or
" persons born within." The law having
conferred this change, designates the two
classes by the legal'terms, alien and citizen,
both of which specify relations growing out
of the generic terms, foreigner and native.
Such then being the true meaning of the
word foreigner, iu which sense it is used by
Vattel and other writers on law, and finding
it employed in the statute in question, where
it is put in contradistinction to native," it
h to be inferred that the intention of the
legislators was limited only by its significa
tion. Had they wished to confine the
meaning to the class for which Mr. Brown
contends, they would have used the term,
alien, w hich would have avoided every doubt
iu the interpretation. But having the choice
of the two before them, they used that which
includes not only aliens but naturalized sub
jocts also, thus giving the widest scope pos
sible for the formation of impartial juiies.
We are further confirmed in this opinion by
the well admitted fact, that the design of
t.:e Iramers of the laws was to provide for
eigners wit!i juries, not as Mr. Brown asserts
in one place, of men having an interest in
the parties litigant, but rather as he states
m another, because they know; i. e., persons
undeotandiiig their la: guage, of the same
mental capacities themselves, and conver
sant with the ruLs of the courts and man
ner of securing and analyzing tcstiimony
f their respective countries. Such was the
generous and equitable intentions of the
legislators. If it is to be narrowed to Mr.
Brown's views, and one class of "foreigners"
within the meaning of the statute excluded,
he can with equal propriety demand to set
aside any other class. R, a CUS(i l,t.tWrcii
foreigners of two diiTcrent and perhaps hos
tile nations, v.o should see their consuls re
spectively wrangling with the court for an
entire juiy of their own countrymen, to the
lusion of the other. The court would
" present the deplorable spectacle of an
'"elm for the display of national animosities,
and this government be tho foot-ball of
contention between the parties. If it be
objected that u case might arrive in which
tins -ovennnent had a resulting interest,
then, even admitting to strengthen the argu-