The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1863-04-02
THE PACIFIC
Commercial Advertiser.
APRIL .

next week. The questions involved and set Il
rest by it are of such Importance that it is wei
70 review the subject, and see what they are, AM
what will be their bearing on the community anC
people.
There has been much mystifcation about thi
liquor question in connection with our Consti
tuition, or more properly speaking the advocate:
of the in~discriminate sale of intoxicating drink:
have sought to involve it in doubt and mystery
though the laws on the subject are clear enough,
as is also the Constitution. Yet under this i'm
preston created by the opponents OF the law
and of the Constitution, the sale Of liquor to
the natives has been on the increase, with now
and then an arrest, the officers of the law hardly
knowing whether they would be sustained or
not in the case. The suit against Mr.. Booth
was to test the prohibitory law and the act
of sale being admitted in the defense, the
case rested on the legality or constitution
ality of the law. To test it thoroughly, all
those engaged in the sale Of liquors con tributed
to have it fully argued, and the suit was
therefore regarded simply as an amicable one to
set at rest the validity Of the law in question.
In its issue, however, all were more or less in
terested.
The defense, conducted by David l.. Gregg,
Esq, rested the case on these points, as stated in
the decision
1st That the law under which the defendant is charged,
embodied N the 42i Chapter Of the Penal Code, is not in force,
consistent with the law Of August, 1867.
Illogical contradictory, absurd "n its face, unjust aud unreason-
able IN its consequences, and therefore void.
ith-That it is conflict also with the LIST, 18th and GIL Arti-
Giles Of the Constitution, and therefore void.
The case appears to have been argued with
uncommon tact and zeal, and with all the ability
which the learned advocate could bring 20 its
But each point raised by him was met
with equal tact by the Attorney General, in an
argument which carried conviction in every line,
an abstract of which we published some two
months ago.
The decision of the full bench takes up
each of these points of the defense, examines
them very fully with reference to authorities
having a direct bearing on them, and most COM
pletely and efFectually destroys every argument,
proof or theory brought forward. Never before
has there been a result so calculated 10 in
spire confidence in our judiciary, or pride in the
integrity and firmneSs OK the men whom it has
pleased the King to appoint to give stability and
vitality to the laws. 1t is by such acts as this
that the Judiciary becomes IL bulwark guarding
the rights and liberties Of King, chiefs and peo-
pie, imparting confidence to ruler and the ruled,
and which, while il creates confidence in our
selves, will tend 10 make us more respected
abroad.
On every point, the decision is clear and full
against the defendant. Respecting the first plea
set up by the defense, to the effect that the Penal
Code liquor law has been repealed by the statute
of 1862, Judge Robertson says
How can the t,tut Of IS5l he slid I, embrace the snb;ar.
matter Of section l, chapter IL Of the Penal Code, when that
statute. as the defendant contends. contains no provision what
ever touching the seIIiu, 81 nou,rs 10 uatiy.s, m. Later ST..
ute could only have embraced the matter Of the former either
by expressly repeating, modifying, or re-enacting the penal
provision The penal law l. lctt unt"uchedi FOR the mere silence
cannot affect that law. Tie penal statute being still in force, L
presume the legislature deemed it unnecessary to repeat. ia
Of liquors to NATIVES; bur the subject is guarded with great
are, by requiring the insertion in the vendors bond OF a condi-
# the Kingdom"
The second argument of the defense was
too silly and nonsensical to have received
my notice. 1t was to the effect that because
he word : to- was omitted after "sell' and
= give" therefore the law was void as though
my one could sell or give liquor without it
being understood as sold or given TO another
person. Well does the Judge say of this:
This is certainly n strained and hypercritcal reading OF the
anguase Of the statute The meaning Of that language, when
cad and construed in the ordinary manner. is : obvious that L
m surprised at the amount of labor and ingenuity expended
v counsel in the eudeAvOr To build up a construction which, |
pon examination, viii be found to destroy itself, by rendering
he Jaw almost uugatory in practice; and no court will adopt
uscepuble Of one hat will give effect to the avowed purpose Of
he law makers, and the declared object Of the law
The third plea raised by the defensc-that the
lw conflicts with the French Treaty-is shown
apparently as little effort as those which
,recede it, to be perfectly untenable. Not the
important of the proofs brought forward
o show a harmony between the treaty and the
avs, is the explicit language of the late Com
missioner Perrin, gwen in the decision
1T appears. by reference to the Treaty and Protocols, as
rinted 10y order Of the King in Council, (See page .o) that r
1.gesti0n having been made, in Privy Council. that the Treaty
provided for the sale Of Intoxicating liquors To the Kings ma
We subjects. contrary 10 the haWaian munlclpai laws IN
commissioner solved that doubt. officially, a. follows: That
had never entered int the intention Of France 10 interfere in
be system OF the HAWAIIAN laws which regulate N ait ot
luors to the natives; il il not the intention 81 France now.
he object Of the IOth Article i TO protect foreigners, especially
R French, against all systematic and absolute prohibition and
the same time leaving to the Hawaiian Government every
berty IN the internal regulation Of that special commerce
then. il appears that the existing municipal laws ne in con-
rmuy with His Majesiy's Treaty engagements. rs mutually
nierstood by the two Governments; and this part II the de-
ue must therefore fall 10 the ground II
1t was mainly on the argument that the pro-
ibitory liquor law is unconstitutional that the
efense looked for success. and this, We may add,
as the most important issue involved in the
lit. The idea that foreigners could come here,
uietly set to work and oyerturn the Constitu-
on or any law of the Kingdom, because for
its provisions did not square with their
of republican or monarchical liberty,
the attention of the friends of Hawaiian
peace ana progress, and for awhile !
in their minds some anxiety. Congre-