Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 308, 23 ʻOkakopa 1891 — Unequal Justice. [ARTICLE]

Unequal Justice.

The Platform of the National Liberal Party, among other things, has an article, directly, and others indirectly advocating freedom and equality for all men. Some of these articles refer to the inequality of the franchise, to the uneven and partial administration of affairs in general, and the necessity of instituting and further extending the elective system in the election of public servants, beginning with the judiciary of the country, the Executive and Legislative. Our attention has been particularly called to this uneven state of administering the affairs of the country, by the following item, which appears in the Daily Bulletin of Oct. 19, 1891. A Portuguese named Mariano was brought before the Police Justice this morning, charged with larceny of a case of whiskey, valued at $20. on October 16th, the property of Lovejoy & Co. Mariano adtnitted his guilt, when he was sentenced to ten days imprisonment at hard labor and to pay a fine of $40 and costs. "Ah Loy, a Chinaman, was convicted on a similar charge, the article taken being three bundles of cloth, the property of a fellow-coun-tryman. The larceny was committed on Wednesday last. When accosted on the street he 'gave it away' by saying the articles belonged to Sing Loy, whose store wae barned. He was found guilty and c«entenoed to one year's imprisonment at hard labor and to pay a fine of $30 and costs." Here are two men, one a Portuguese, and the other a Chinese, both alike composed of that earth from which man originally created, en joying all the senses with which man is endowed, to enjoy the plea-

sures or to feel the pains, trial and disappointments of this life. They both committed larceny, a crime against the laws, and a transgresssion of the moral code; each are equally guilty before both codes. The amount of stolen property is the same or very nearly so. The question in which the public is interested to know, is, why should there be such a wide difference in the punishment of these two offenders. It seems to us arbitrary and unfair that one man should be imprisoned one year and another man only ten days. This is a matter of judgement, and shows the ability and fitness of a person for the position, and its influence upon the minds of the public.