Hawaii Holomua, Volume III, Number 285, 16 August 1893 — Untitled [ARTICLE]

Thk Advertiser \vriter claims that for years complairits bave beeu made ug:iinst the Hawaiian jurv*system, Perhaps 90. but i9 not the le.--.rned attorney who writes f.ir Johnstone aware lhat emnplaints were not alone made agaiii9t native Ilawaiian juries,but as often ag.iinst the f(»reign jury. Should we remind the learned lawyer—looking-for-a-client-of the case ōf Mr.W.M. Gibson for hreach -ni proraise preferred ug iinst him by a notonovs adventimss and in whieh the honest iraj»artial white jury gave a verdict for the nlaintifl'—a vcrdict whieh to-day 8tands s»s a blot on the records of the jndiciary dejv»rtraent of Hawaii. 1b it necessary to remind the Advertiser'8 hired lawyer that the men who took the case for the j)laintiff in ihe lrial referred to as attorneys were the present Kxcellency Ihe leurnetl Altorney General the other pn g»*nt Excellency the ambassador to Chicago Mr. Thnr3ton and lhat great reforra p»*t Mr. Kinney and that through the eff.»rts of these three masterspirits, git a verdict fronaajury about whieh we only ean siy wiih the Advertis?r writer that *'it is useleē3 to assert that j)olitic3 cuts no figure in the rcsultsof ihe trials by jnry. M G.);»d and trae men as the Advertiser willeall thera, hecaii8e t!iey are f>rc : gaers s.it on that jury, and gave that verdict whieh every man in this town to day adruits wili atink in the judieial nostril8 of coming generaticns. Mcssrs. Treg!oan, Oscir White, Lansing, J. J. Shaw and Leckcr. among cthers of the Advertiser’s p >litic.tl friends rendered that verd ct whieh to-duy gives us the right from a Hawaiian j)oint of view to eall ‘*rot” whenever attacks are madeon the Hawaiian jury system. Does Mr. Dole, or does Mr. Sraith y.t reraeinber a C;vii auii whieh created fome attention, and whieh wiis tried bef»re a “while” jury on Noveraber 10, 1882. The suit was Called Laz trus vs. Trousseau, assumpsit. and stands to-duy as a g!aringexaiup!eof what justice ean be cxj>ected in this small eommunity, where personal feelings, personal prcjudices, and politics have so strong a sway. We shail, in due tiroe, go into the details of the cases, whieh have been stamped as criminal outrages agaiust jii8tice p>erpelrated by “foreign” juries. The Advertiser asks, ‘*Can the j>eoj)lt of Uawaii dej)end opon a Hawaiian jury for the fulfiliment of tbe requirementsof Hawaiian law?” Weahall furnish the ex-briliiaut

Iawyer who writes f»r the Advertiser with so raany in*tcnces of aetions of ihe “foreigo" junes. some of ihem quoted io the »n"St derisive lernis, by hin s f tbat fie wi.l either withdraw his q iestion or wilh us ask: “C.m the pe»ple nf Hawaii depend upon any jury f»r ihe fulfiilmeat of ihe requireu;ents of llawaiian law???” I