APPENDIX. 523 



VIII. 



U. S. Ship Vinccnnes, 



Honolulu, Nov. 23d, 1841. 

 Sir, — 



I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communica- 

 tion of this date, respecting a man belonging to this ship, by the name 

 of Lewis Herron. In replying to it, I would in the first place make 

 known to you the desire I have always evinced, and still do, to cause 

 all under my command to respect the laws of the Islands, and to suffer 

 the penalties when infringed, provided a proper trial has been had. 

 Such not having been the case in the present instance, in my opinion, 

 I deemed it a duty I owe to those under my command, and all other 

 American citizens, as well as to your government, to interpose, and 

 prevent punishments being inflicted. 



The case as I view it is this, viz. : Lewis Herron, during his liberty 

 on shore, quietly desires to enter a public house, and is met at the door 

 by a man with a cutlass, who refuses him admittance, and after a little 

 altercation, he is assaulted and wounded in the leg with the cutlass. 

 This excites his passion, (as well it might,) and he takes the weapon 

 from the aggressor and inflicts several blows on him with its flat side ; 

 finds himself attacked by several; inflicts a wound, and is found in 

 possession of the weapon by the police ; he is apprehended and taken 

 to the fort. 



The next day he is brought before you ; you hold an examination, 

 without the formality of a trial, receive testimony (not on oath), and 

 pass sentence on him, unknown to any one, to receive one hundred 

 lashes, and pay a fine of fifty dollars. 



Application is made to you by my order, for a trial by jury, which 

 I was informed you engaged to give the next morning; to my great 

 surprise, the first news I learn is, that you have inflicted twenty-eight 

 lashes at eight o'clock, and intend to subject him to seventy-two more, 

 and a fine of fifty dollars. 



Now it strikes me, that the magnitude of the punishment presented 

 by the laws ought to have caused you to order a trial by jury, which, 

 according to treaty, is fully acknowledged, and then the person would 

 have had full opportunity for a fair and impartial trial. 



It appears most clearly to my mind, that you lost sight of the dis- 

 tinction of using weapons to assault and with criminal intention, and 

 their accidental use in defence, or from provocation. 



It appears to be very clear that you were of opinion that he did 



