Newspaper Page Text
T If E IV 0 L Y N E S I AN.
110 . T H E POL Y N H S 1 AN. OFFICIAL JOVRXAI. (F TUF. HAWAII AS auvKtiSMKsr. HONOLULU, SATURDAY, NOV. 23, 1814. When we penned tho notice in our last, of the change in the character of the Friend, we were far from anticipating its speedy en trance into the field of politics. Hut so it has happened, and it has signalized its advent, by the publication of a severe article; the ascerbity of which is bestowed freely upon the Government, the Courts of Justice, and Mr; 'Judd.' We have also come in for an ample share. The spirit of the Friend has been hitherto so much at variance with the acrimony of political strife, and its editor so zealous in the causo of Truth and Charity, that this course is the more surprising. We would gladly, by learning the real author of the article in question, have spared the editor of the Friend from such comments as the nature of the piece demands. Upon applica tion, however, to Mr. Damon to that effect, he declined informing us. Consequently, we have no option, but to consider the article editorial, although we should be sorry to be lieve that Mr. Damon entertains the senti ments to which he has given publicity. A9 the argument of the party that main tains the views adopted by the U. S. Com missioner, we were pleased to see it appear. The weakness of their cause has been made even more manifest, for no new views or proofs have been adduced. It is the old story in a new dress. As its arguments, pro and con, arc already before the public, it is need less, at this juncture, to refer to them again. If the reasons already advanced be deemed inefficient, we must be excused from furnish ing understandings also. But, there arc some points in this article, which claim at tention, and at the risk of committing what Dr. Johnson considers the greatest breach of politeness, quoting an author against him self, we shall allude to them. We find " The Friend" a great stickler for fairness, but if it is proved in many in stances, in the article in question, to have violated this principle, it will aid the reader 'in estimating the value of 'the arguments which it adduces. On tho first page, Mr. Judd is made to reply to Mr. Brown, in his letter of 30th. August, that his " sole ground" for upholding the course of the Governor, wa9 that there is no existing treaty, &tc. No candid reader will find any such conclusion from the perusal of that letter. Mr. Judd states, "that His Excellency is not justified by any existing treaty, in departing from tho statute laws of the Hawaiian govern ment," and further, that he " bees leave to ' . . . . . . request time to . ri'nJtcae tho ground assu med." His reasons aro to come, and it is upon them that he relics to uphold the course of the Governor. Another notable instance is as follows: " To what a mortifying result has Dr. Judd arrived to publish to the world that a nation which has been represented as fully," capa ble of not only regulating its intercourse with foreign powers," but as having arrived at a high degree of civilization, considered, only three years since when the laws were enacted, rape, murder, arson and treason to bo " simple misdemeanors." Could a more unfounded assertion be made ? The Hawaiian statutes punish mur der with death. Treason, by confiscation, imprisonment and banishment. Rape, under certain circumstances mentioned in the stat ute, by banishment or hard labor in prison. But in cases like Wiley's, when the statuto makes it " scarcely a misdemeanor" here, by a fine of 50 dollars. The penalties attached to tho offences in tho above cases constitute them crimes with the exception of tho dis tinction made by the legislators in one de gree of tho last. The reason for this, Mr, Judd very properly says ho is not called upon to discuss. Whatever may be his pri vate judgment, he took the law as ho found ana ti the Commissioner had done tho ame this long controtersy would have been spared. Again, on the fourth page, Mr.' Judd is charged with u " most glaring contradiction" of himself, and the reader is i et ned to the Correspondence, pages 12th. and 8th., fur the fact. The writer must have intended to blind his readers by the boldness of the as sertion. On turning to the pages in question, wc find the facts exactly the reverse. The letter of the 31st. August did remain unan swered, as will be seen. On the 4th. Sept., the U. S. Commissioner addressed another note to tho Secretary, and in tho reply to that, on the 6th., Mr. Judd writes that His Majesty had been informed by him, that Mr. Brown had addressed an official note to this department on tho same subject, to which there had not as yet been allowed time to reply. Tho note referred to was the one of August 30th., to which, in a reply of the same date, Mr. Judd had also begged leave to re quest time to reply: &c. If there is nny contradiction in the para graph referred to on page -lGtli., it is Mr. Hooper that makes it and not Mr. Judd, who merely repeats Mr. Hooper's opinion. While upon this topic, wc would observe, that to us there seems to have arisen an unnecessary misapprehension on tho part of the opponents of Mr. Judd. Both he and Mr. Iticord testify to tho fact that Mr. Hooper used language to the following effect, in a conversation at the Foreign Office, when only they were present. " That his nominated jury would he more likely to convict Wiley, than one promiscuously drawn from the boxes, and he thought it ought on that account to be more acceptable to the Government." Yet the Friend doe3 not hesitate to charge both Mr. Judd and Mr. Ricord with uttering a "palpable, infamous untruth J'." This is a serious accusation, and subjects both the ed itor of tho Friend and publisher to an action for libel. Wc would seriously ask of the Editor, if he believes his readers will credit him, when he accuses the Secretary of State and the Attorney General of perjury; for that is the plain charge. And what are his grounds ? Why, that Mr. Hooper denies that he wished to nominate a jury for the purpose of convicting Wiley. We fully be lieve Mr. Hooper in this, and beg the Editor of the Friend to read more attentively the affidavit of Mr. Ricord. What is its obvious meaning ? To us it reads as follows; that in the conversation that ' ensued between the parties, relative to tho respective merits of the methods of selecting jurymen, Mr. Hoo per, who had proposed men of known moral worth for his jury, observed, that a jury like that would bo more likely to convict the ac cused, than one drawn promiscuously from the ballot box. No one can doubt that he meant, if ho did not express it, if guilty. And, from tho nature of the conversation, it is evident that he made this distinction on the ground, that if the jury were chosen by lot, Wiley might by chance have upon it, some one or more, who, from prejudices, friend ship, or any of the many motives which bias human judgment, might be disposed to give a verdict in his favor. But there would be no such chance in the jury ho selected, and the government, on that account, ought to approve of it. The impartiality of tlic jury was not tho question. It was one of law, and tho law prescribing a method which might possibly givo chances in Wiley's favor, he was fully entitled to them. To this effect was the Attorney General's reply. Mr. Hooper was not, nor has he ever been char ged with wishing to appoint a jury to convict Wiley. That he supposes ho has been is evident from affidavits, and tho idea has been circulated throughout the community, giv ing rise to no small degree of ill-will. The Friend asks questions with a triumphant sneer, as if it expected the ignorance of oth ers to equal its own. " We would ask of the learned Secretary, if it is the custom in his native country for a ' plaintiff" to plead guilty or not guilty beforo a jury in its Courts ? Mr. Brown de nies that Mr, Wiley ought to have been tri ed at all before the Inferior Judges, without notice having been first given to tho United States Com. Agent. By referring to Consul Wyllie's Utter on pngo 74, in relation to V Turn the Barber," it appears that the. prin ciple acted upon in British cases, is to inform the British Consul when one of his country men is to be t lied . Why is nut such a course pursued towards tho U. S. Consul, in cases of Americans r" To the former it can be replied, there was no plea of any kind made. To the latter, it was a trial sought by the government. . " As an offset to Mr. Brown's ignorance, we will only refer to Dr. Judd's statements that rape is punished with death in England, that neither in England or the United States, is this 'deference,' (the allowing a jury of half foreigners) paid by law to the subjects of foreign countries, accused of crime,' p. 27; and that the Governors of the Islands have the same judicial power which is vested in tho Supreme courts of the respective States of tho United States.' Will the Sec retary be good enough to state to whom, can one appeal from tho decisions of the Sir premc Judges of Massachusetts ? From the Governor, here, there is an appeal." The preceding arc indeed an offset, to quote the Friend, "to Mr. Brown's igno rance." Statute 13, Eliz., C. 7, prescribes that punishment in England, and never hav ing been repealed, is still in force. It enacts also, "that it is not a sufficient excuse in the ravisher, to prove that she is a common strumpet: for she is still under the protection of the law and may not be be forced. Nor is the offence of Rape mitigated by showing that the woman at last yielded to the violence, if such her consent were forced, by fear of death or duress; nor is it any excuse, that she consented after the fact." 1 , Hawks, 103. If a jury of half-foreigners is allowed in the United States, why does not Mr. Brown show it ? An appeal from the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, or from the Supreme Court of any state in the Union, is to the Supreme Court of the United States of Amer ica, by Act of Congress, 24th. September, 1789, 25. Wc arc requested to look into the diction ary for information as to the meaning of the word "cmpannelled." For the further infor mation of the "Friend" we have done so, and find "impanneled" to be defined "formed as jury." Webster, p. 432. Consequently im panneling is registering their names as they are stvom or 'formed." And further, lest it should again blunder, wo will inform it, that by the laws of England and the several states of the American Union, no jury is impannel ed to try a cause until the challenges have been made. When twelve have been called up from the array, to whom neither party has or can have any valid objection, they are said to be impanneled. "As the jurors appear when called, they shall be sworn, un less challenged by either party." Lord Gif ford. The Friend confuses the words " the panel of the jurors," or the twelve summon ed to try the causo, with the word " impan neling," which we have shown to be the act of preparing them by challenge and by oath for trying the specific cause in hand. Wc inquire of "Tho Friend" how "noto rious" wrong is done when the law afforded the desired justice ? Here as in the U S. a court of appeal is provided to correct mis takes and review decisions. If the parties think that error has occurred below, they must appeal, or the error is not an error in law. Other questions are raised in regard to tho English translation of the laws : "Will the editor deny that this translation baa been printed and sold by order of tho government ! Will he deny that it was ta ken to the United States, France and Great Britain by tho Diplomatic agents of His II. Majesty, and laid beforo them as the transla tion of the laws of this realm ? To these we reply, that we are ignorant. But this we do know, that while conducting the old "Polynesian" four years since, wc requested a friend to translato for our col umns the Hawaiian Statutes into English, thinking it would be acceptable to our sub scribers. While wo continued that paper, thoso translations were furnished, though somewhat irregularly. Whether they con stituted any part of what is now called by Mr. B rown "the translation" wo cannot say, but can assure him that so far as they were extended, they were considered simply a translation. The Friend quotes a sentence from the letter of Mr. Judd, as an instance of the fault which we had to find with its composition. In this case it is perfectly right, but the sen tence, although of an awkward length and involving too many distinct propositions, is perfectly intelligible when the typographical error is corrected and "valid" as in the ori ginal reads "invalid." To quiet the cavils of the Friend in regard to the assertion that the Secretary of State assumed the "sole responsibility" in the Wi ley case, we will inform it, that the subject was debated at much length before the King at a full Cabinet Council. Whether it was or not, however, it is nothing to the Friend. His Majesty nor his ministers need none of its misplaced logic or futile arguments to inform them of their duties. The Friend is also pleased to express its disgust at the publica tion of the pamphlet in question. Has it none to spare for those who rendered it expedient ; who interfered unnecessarily in such a low case, and, who by impeaching the justice of His Majesty's courts, scout ing at their testimony, and appealing to sustain the grounds assumed to the affidavit of a man condemned by a foreign jury as well as by those courts, compelled the gov ernment to give to the world the highest kind of testimony ? The written and sworn re cords of their courts. They tell so much against their views that we do not wonder at the chagrin so palpably manifested. Would they not like a veil thrown over their whole proceedings ? If they have started the cry of mad-dog they must not be angered if their own dog is killed. But can any thing else be expected from those who having assumed a position, are ashamed or unable to meet its legitimate deductions. Before entering up on it they should have considered to what it was leading them. If their adversaries can show it to be untenable or pernicious in its consequences, it is not manly to dodge the fact and resort to ridicule and invective. Mr. Brown shows in his letter of 14th. Feb., the 3rd. article to be injurious and immoral, and sustains his views by supposing a case in which a consul might collude whith his countrymen to defeat justice. Mr. Brown's words are "a jury might bo packed by the English consul, who would acquit the defen dant, even if guilty." Mr. Judd, as he had by rules of argument a perfect right to, ap plied Mr. Brown's supposition' of fraudulent collusion to cases like Wiley's which might occur, and showed by fair and logical de duction to what principle it would lead. To claim privileges, which, by any possibility, might tend in the most remote degree to such a result is indeed in the claimcr an insult to his countrymen. . The Friend is pleased to say that the Cor respondence is the most singular document ever issued, &c. " Mai y soit 'qui mal y pense." By reference to the criminal Re corder of New York, arid other publications ordered by the various courts in Europe and America, for the purpose of preserving crim inal records, it will find details of a far more revolting nature. Such publications are not intended, however, nny more than the Cor respondence to be carried into domestic cir cles. But enough of this. The Friend in the same spirit with which it has assailed the highest officers of government and the courts of judicature, has seen fit also, to make an invidious personal attack upon us. We thank the editor for supposing that our tal ents could have been better appreciated in the United States thah hero. That, being the land where general intelligence most pre vails ho has paid us a compliment, and re flected somewhat sorrily upon his country men hero. Ho can settle that with them. But we most distinctly call upon him to point out his authority for tho speech so ridicu lously put into our mouth. It is in vain to reason or even to contend against ridicule, if language is coinedand palmed ofiT as the genuine production of an opponent. Again, a specious attempt is made to cover Mr. Brown's errors of composition, by attributing them to "the editors own types." The highest kind. of testimony it seems is required to cov-