Polynesian., 1845-03-22

would COnll1Ne dt tlc dttcIlpt.
"Ifthe accuser and the accused be both
foreigners. then the Jury shall be made up of
foreigners onIy'-says the statute on which
Mr.. Grown POUNDS one of his objections.
Several points are necessary to be ascer-
tanned in order to get at the real meaning of
the law.
Of lorcirncrs:' Sccond,-what is the
meaning of the word in the view of the law.
And, third,-do those interpretations con-
lict 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 " forc;gner,' and more par
t~icularlv that used in the Hawaiian law,
"hoolc," is the opposite of native" Ac-
cordinG to Webster, Walker, Fuller, and
Knight, and in short to all philologists, the
first means, ga person born in a foreign coun-
ty, or wjihom the coUni,y's Jurisdiction of
wAjch one speohs." The latter is the con-
verse ofthis, " born within, sc. These two
terms, {" toleisncr'' 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 ply
steal 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, yet as mems desires or
necessities ilnpcl them to wander and to
leave the place of their birth, the law has,
among civilized nations, provided a method
of removing the Disqualification which at
tend foreigners, and without changing their
characteristic of persons born without the
country" it gives them the privileges and
imposes upon them the duties of natives or
persons born within" The law having
conferred this change, dcsignates 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, in which sense it is used by
' attel and other writer's on law, and finding
1t employed in the statute in question, where
it is put in contradistinction to native" it
Is to be inferred that the intention of the
Legislators was limited only by its signitica-
ton. Had they wished to ~coniine the
meaning to the class for which Mr.. Brown
contends, they would have used the term,
alien, which would have avoided every doubt
IN the Interpretation. But having the choice
OF the two before them, they used that which
includes not only aliens but natural,zed sub
iects also, thus giving the widest scope pos
sibie for the formation of impartial luries.
W. are further confirmed in this opinion by
the well admitted fact, that the design Of
the iramcfs Of the laws was to provide for
eigncrs with j%ur!es, not as MIR. Brown asserts
IN one place, OF men having an interest in
Inc parties lItigant, bat rather as he states
III another, because they know; i. e., persons
understanding their laI guage, of the same
mental capacities - themselves, and CONVEX
sant with the rn!-s of the courts and man.
ner OF securing and Analysing testimony
OF thcIr respective countries. Such was the
generous and equitable intentions of the
legislators. If it is to be narrowed to Mr..
browns views, and one class of .'foreirners"
"th!n the meaning Of the statute excluded,
he can with equal propriety demand to set
ASIDE any other class. In a case between