The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1873-04-05

know that he was alone IN his rebellion.
Mr.. EDITOR :-The decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of J. H. Wood VS.. Afo. is, I presume q
fair subject for criticism. 1t will be admitted that
the critic would he better able to handle the subject
if he had enjoyed the advantages of a legal training
and education; but as it is not thought to be courte-
Gus, surely not judicious, for a member of our bar to
criticise the decisions of the Justices of the Supreme
Court, 1 shall, with much difidence, undertake the
task. 1t is to be regretted that the Chief Justice
should depart in this instance from his usually calm
and digni6ed treatment of causes coming before him.
The whole decision bears indubitable evidence of the
warmth and temper of the partisan. Seemingly he
cannot forget his own large interests in labor con-
tracts, and pleads for them rather than delivers him.
self of a legal opinion.
The question of expediency has complete control
of his mind. The exigencies of the times; the protec-
ton of a large monied interest, sway him from a just
balance of the issue before him. This is manifested
by the following paragraph
"This Statute was enacted, of course, in reference
to the business of the country. The productions Of
the country must be gathered and secured, or manu-
featured when mature, and if neglected they deterio-
rate and are essentially damaged, and the law in
in question is designed to prevent persons from will
fully violating their contracts, and doing damage to
their employers. 1t is in degree as essential to the
sugar planter that his employees should remain with
him to perform his service as agreed upon, during
the crop, as it is for the seamen TO remain on the
ship during the voyage. a sugar plantation en-
counters as many adverse winds as a vessel, and is
quite as likely to be endangered in crop time as a
vessel is on a lee shore, when all hands are required"
By this are we given to understand that the
g Masters and Servants Law was enacted in the
interests of a class-the sugar planters The COM
parison between a sugar plantation and a ship on a
lee shore is certainly not a happy one. do not pre-
sumo that the learned Judge will assume that the
contract, shipping articles, between a ship master
and seaman is analogous to the contract between the
50 Master and the Servant;'' that the powers of the
ship master and the sugar master are equal. The
one, cut off from the civil and military powers of his
country, having almost autocratic powers, q very
emperor on his quarter deck, is not to be compared
to the planter within an easy distance of the author
tiles of this Kingdom. Again could a ship master on
one of our San Francisco packets contract with a
seaman for one gears serUice-not for the term of
one year-and if the man desert from him after two
months service and keep out of reach for the next
ten months, could he, the master, cause the arrest of
the man and compel him to serve the remaining ten
months of the g years service?' The comparison is
as unfortunate a one as that between the labor con-
tract and marriage contract put forward by another
sugar planter a few years since.
The wording of the Statute, " for the remainder of
the original term of SERVICE seems to be of doubtful
meaning to the Chief Justice. So to the language of
another Statute" shall not extend beyond one year
next after the end of the original term of service.''
Would the meaning and intent of the Legislature be
clearer if the last clause read "Shall not extend
L-.o.I 800 -oo, ,o-a ,Eo, L F. e ~
original term of service ?" The law under review
unquestionably restricts the liberty Of the Kings
subjects, so reads a former decision of our Court,
and an old English law maxim says that Gin
doubtful cases of Englishmen's rights, the odds shall
be in favor of liberty Our maxim is: In doubt
full cases of Masters and Servants rights the odds
shall be in favor of the Master.
A stranger might say If your Chief Justice holds
contracts which will be affected by his decision in
the case of the one before him, why is he permitted
to sit in judgment? Just what answer to make, in
view of our Constitutional and Statutory provisions
to the contrary. 1 am puzzled to know. 1t is true
that the Chief Justice had no direct interest in the
contract brought before him, so, perhaps the letter
of the law is observed but is the spirit Of the law
The Judge asks Besides the Statute expressly
declares, that the penal time imposed for continued
refusal TO return to service, shall not be included
within the original term of service. why then should
the penal term for crime be included 20
1t may be true that the statute declares that the
penal time imposed for continued refusal to return to
service shall not be included within the original
term but does it not also say that it shall not be
added to extend beyond one year from such original
term. Why then should the penal term for crime he
added beyond the limit of one year from such oriSi-
term?
The Chief Juctice says "The Court is of opinion
that it is immoral to fail to fulfill a contract without
a reason"
I beg to digress in order to put a case of a failure
to fulfill a contract, net on the part of a laborer, but
by a man of intelligence and education, and suggest
that a proper respect for the opinion of this commu-
nifty demands that the reason should be given.
When His Honor the Chief Justice came to the
Bench he doubtless subscribed to the oath to support
the Constitution and Laws of this Kingdom. A cove
nant or contract was then made between the Judge,
King and the People. A most solemn obligation was
entered into.
One of the provisions of our Statutes, this very
' Masters and Servants Law is, that the labor
contract shall not bind the servant after the death OF
his master. In due time a :" master - died and the