The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1875-07-31
THE PACIFIC
GOmmertialAobert
SATURDAY,. lily 81

II SATURDAY Y. JULY 81.
YESTERDAY, the Goth inst, His Majesty received
at Iolani Palace, at y noon, Hajor James II. Wode-
house, II. b. Ms Commissioner and Consul General,
who presented to His Majesty Captain Frank T.
Thomson, of H. B. NJ. ship Challenger and Com
mander W. Z de c. Cookscn, II. 3. M'sship PetereI.
H. Z. NJ Commissioner also presented to His Majesty
Professor c. Wyville Thomson, Chief Of the Civilian
Scientific staff on board Of II. b. Ms ship ChaHen-
ger.
The following officers and gentlemen we're also pre-
scented On this occasion Lieut.. W. II. Henderson,
II. 3. Ms ship Peterel Lieut.. A. Carpenter, II. B.
NJ ship Challenger J. Labouverie Page, Paymas-
ter II. b. Ms ship PeiereI James Ferguson, Chief
Engineer II. b. NJ ship Challenger John Jas. Wild,
Secretary II. b. Ms ship Challenger VIM. Laird
McGregor and Thee II. Da7ies. Esquire, II. b. Ms
Vice Consul
II Majesty was attended on this occasion by II.
A. H. Prince Vim. Pitt Leleiohoku. His TX. W. L.
Green, Minister Of Foreign Affairs tbs TX. W. L.
Moehoaua, Minister Of Interior His Ex ]. 5.
Walker, Minister Of Finance His Ex. II. Stanley.
Attorney General His Ex. John o. Dominis. Gov
ernOr Of Oahu tIGon E. II, Boyd, Ms Chamber
lain Hon. Henry Kahanu, Col. ". F. Allen. Col.
Chas. II. Judd, Major Fl Prendergast, Major C. w.
Macfarlane.
<AT LENGTH it has been authoritatively declared
that we have 4 divorce law. An important deci-
sion was rendered by the Supreme Court ON
Wednesday last, involving this question: a libel
was fled by w. c. Jones, Esq, attorney at law,
in favor of a party applying under the law of
1870, for a divorce absolutely from the bonds of
matrimony, in order to contest the constitution
ality of the repeal of that law by the Act of
August lst, 1874. The case came on for a hear
ing before the full Court in Banco. and Mr..
Jones contended that the repeal of the Act of
1874 was unconstitutional, because it embraced
more than one object, contrary to the provisions
OF Article II Of the Constitution, which reads as
follows:
"Article II. To avoid improper influences that
may result from intermixiDg in one and the same
Act, such things as may have no proper relation to
each other, every law shall embrace but one object,
and that shall be expressed in its title.'
1t was contended in the argument that the Act
of 1874, having embraced in it's provisions two
distinct objects, was obviously void, because that
provision Of the Constitution was mandatory and
not directory. The Court, in rendering their
decision, declared the Act of 1874 unconstitu-
tional and void, because it contained two distinct
objects, one of which was the repeal of the divorce
of 1870, and the other the re-enactment of
the law of 1866, permitting divorced persons to
marry again-objects entirely distinct from each
other. They regarded the 18th Article of the
Constitution as mandatory ard not directory
that to consider it directory would be to give it
no force whatever, and would subject it to the
will of the Legislature. -
I Fhis decision establishes the fact that the
divorce law Of 1870 is still in existence. md
those persons who are so unfortunate as to led
to avail themselves of its benefits can apply to mr.
of justice for relief.