The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1863-02-12

connection with. and was not ncontTavsntlO
Of, the Penal Act now under debate tina
both were subsistent and operative ar the
same time and in addition to this. the
appellant himself, by his License bond. has
bound himself 10 keep the law Of which he
now complains, under which he has lived
and yearly undergone the hardship Of taking
out his license for thirteen vears-bound
himself not only to keep this law, which Is
IN the Statute Book, but still further TO obey
any " Regulations which the Minister of the
Interior NAV make" With regard to their
verbal and grammatical criticism, that It Is
I necessary 10 supply the particle 81 TO-" after
the verbs 'seIl and give, and the quantities Of
authorities quoted 10 show that Courts may
not InterpOiate words, in an act. TO make sense
Of that which would otherwise convey anoth-
er sense. or no sense at all, the labor OF
getting together the authorities Is certainly
misspent. since no one would deny such a
proposition and they seem to have over
looked the most obvious authorities. when
they have forgotten that the word GIVE and
the ike, DO not require TO after them-So
that If We say, " | will give you a bottle Of
spirits" it Is the same As If one should say,
o. will give To you a bottle Of spirits"
The Law Is alleged by counsel to be in
" restraint of trade and common occupation.'
DAl us - HUI 4 tDNtNfCfL OEt4tIIlDti. IN
every land It Is subject to law and 10 restraint.
IL falls into the same category as vending
poisonous drugs, gunpowder, &c.
IS this law, then, inimical 10 freedom ?
81 Are the natives Of this kingdom free and
equal :" demands opposing counsel. Yes
we reply. In the words of De Lolne, quo
ted by him, To concur by ones suffrage in
enacting laws, enjoying a share, whatever it
may be, of power, and live in a state where
the laws are equal to all, land sure 10 be ex-
ecuted) Is TO be free" In all these particu-
lars are the subjects of this kingdom free,
whether native or foreign. This law does
not initiate against the right Of acquiring,
possessing and protecting property, of pur-
suing or obtaining safety and happiness"
(Con. Art. lst) To be free and equal be-
fore the law, this Is the axiom of constitu-
tional freedom.
1t IS objected that the Hawaiian NAV
secure a license to sell. but he cannot buy
his stock % He may import his stock and
the same, as the appellant does, subject
only TO the same regulations. He is not
barred from buying. We deny that it is a
to sell indiscriminately and without
regulation of law. That is a false freedom
tends to destruction.
There has been no 1nconsiderable amount
VI AtLldlllttlDl 10 llt eject mat tDlS govern
rnent and the Constitution thereof. emanated
from the PEOPLE, and a great deal about
Magma Charta. and some singularlv ~inappro-
quotations therefrom, which, from the
language in which they were spoken, Latin.)
we're equally as uninteIiigible to their client
IS their connection with the subject unde-
lebate was to the Court. There Is no ingre-
iIent OF Democracy in this government.
Powerful Barons have never wrested rights
rom an unwilling Monarch here successful
evolution has never brought n Monarch TO
rial for his lite, nor set aside one line in ia
-Or OF another, and dictated terms to the pre-
erred dynasty. Nor, as in the United
States, has revolution vested the entire gov
.rnment IN the people, so that they had full
i9ht to make what government they pleased,
n which case, the people sovereign in fact
I the tIme) clearly retained all authority
uot expressly delegated TO the ruling power
ut, on the contrary, the Constitution was CIV
II by the King, voluntarily; by II he resigned
ertain rights of absolutism, until then vested
n him from time immemorial, in the chiefish
lyle OF government. What he gave by a fair
of the instrument, mot by i'm
lications,) are the peoples rights what he
not, remains sull vested in his sover-
ignty. How then can it be said in the
realm that the government has no
.ght to pass sumptuary laws to restrain the
OF its subjects, to protect its people
Y laws that cOnduce 10 the - common good,
the protection, safety, and happiness of
IS people" or that such laws interfere with
.e constitutional liberties of the people 1t
conceded that previous to 1850. the King
ad the right to interdict the sale of spirits
any and every one, both native and for
on; can 1t be deduced from the constitution
1852 that he has ever abdicated this right
Re think not. Such doctrine is pernicious
defamation can have none other
an evil effect. And in fact, they have
Jandoned their whole position at last, by
wing that If the CONSTITUTION was the only
ing which they relied upon, the Law might
and but that the 2nd to 10th Articles of
q French Treaty were conclusive against
t Law.
The rule of law is that treaties of amity
ID m cannot be CONSTRUED into alb
cations or humiIiations of sovereignty.
hey must be explained by their context and
:vIOUs meaning, and no subject of another 4
Yer can claim rights under a treaty differ
{ from or beyond those claimed by the ne :
Let US look at the 2nd Article
respective subjects shall have the
Int to buy and TO sell, Of and to tchom
y please" &c, says appellants counsel. I
this clause may be segregated from its con-
Il, then. indeed, the vendor of spirits is
yOnd and above all law. He may sell not
{ only TO the Hawaiian man but TO the =
lwaiIan woman, aye, the Hawaiian child,
-