The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1863-04-09

ituous liquors; and if regard is had 10 the conse
quences which might result from a defeat of the law,
there can be no doubt Of the Interpretation of the
treaty. The law in question was in force when the
treaty was ratified, and had been for many years
Even in equity and fair dealing, TO permit the sale
as when the treaty was made, gives all the advan-
tages the party had a right 10 expect. All nations
who bY treaties permit the importation and sale OF
spirituOUs liquors, impose such duties for license as
they deem proper, and make such other regulations
as legjtimately appertain to the police power. 1.-The
power which every indie pendent nation possesses to
regulate It's internal commerce, as well as It's police,
and 10 direct how, when and where il shall be con-
Quoted in articles intimately connected either with
public morals or public safety, or the public prosper
ity,' cannot be surrendered by doubtful construction
OF a treaty stipulation, or by the still more doubtful
differences from its terms. In a case of doubt even,
1t addresses itself to the political, rather than the
Judicial department, in the first instance. The ma
terial purpose of France in negotiating this treaty
was to effect a reduction in the duties on her wines
and brandies, and if she regarded that her rights
had been violated by this restriction, il is more than
probable that she would have entered her complaints.
There Is no doubt that this construction carries out
the full intent and purpose of the contracting parties.
1t Is not in accordance with the general history of
nations, in their diplomatic relations, to refrain from
asking the execution of the treaty in all advantageous
particulars. \ treaty is but a contract between two
nations. and who can give its true meaning and in
tent better than themselves. II must contain stipu-
lations. clear and definite, before third parties can
take advantage of it, when opposed to the acts and
construction of the parties themselves.
There is no injustice done the respondent. When
he took the license. he knew its conditions. This
provision of law has been in force for many years.
Under this decision he will continue to have the
same rights OF sale by virtue of his license, as it was
understood by the contracting parties TO it that he
would have. But he seeks to extend that license by
the claim of n Constitutional right OF sale to the
whole native pOpu alton, which the law prohibits,
and in reference to which the contract for a license
was made. He will continue to enjoy all the advan-
,ages for which he contracted and paid, and, equita-
bly,, he can claim no more. In saying this, the
court do not contrOvcrt the legal principle that he
should not be held responsible for the violation of a
law which is unconstitutional l am only adverting
TO his rights in foro conscientiae.
My associate has ably presented the whole case,
[ shall not advert TO other points raised by the
counsel for the respondent, for l fully accord
with the legal exposition of them made by Justice
Judgment Of the Police Court affirmed.
Attorney General HARRIS for the Crown.
Mr.. GREGG and Mr.. MONTGOMERY for Defendant.
March 25th, 1868.