The Hawaiian gazette., 1877-12-05

definite and sweeping character of the Ian
guage used in the law has, in times past, led
to at least some cases of unreasonable annoy \
ance and petty oppression, and furnished, if
not good reason, certainly colorado pre-
text for great deal of the opposition to the
law. The standard of intelligence and legal
knowledge among our native policemen and
magistrates, particularly in the country dis
tricts, has not been so high, that doubtful
questions of legal construction could safely be
left to their discretion. The looseness with
| which the act is worded affords an opportu-
nifty, amounting almost to an invitation, to
every Hawaiian Dogberry in the country to
make it mean almost anything his within and
fancy may dictate. In this way injustice has
been done in more than one instance, good
and worthy citizens have at times been sub
jected to unnecessary and vexatious annoyance
and detention and 10 result of any kind ac-
complished, exceat to excite bad feeling and
bring the whole law into disrepute.
We know that it is claimed by those who
are satisfied with the law in its present shape,
|
tions of public character or within the view
of the public, and that no inquisitorial prying
into peoples houses is contemplated. To such
persons We would simply say that the text of
the law itself affords no ground for that opin-
ion-that the Supreme Court has never, so far
as we can learn, so decided, and that it is
directly opposed to the view of the law, held
and acted upon by the Police Court of Homo
lulu. For confirmation of the latter assertion
we would refer to the mentioned in the
communication of " j. o. c." in the GAZETTE
of October oath, in which it is related how five
Cinnamon who had sat down to u quiet game
of cards, in their house, out of sight of the
public, were pouEced upon by policeman,
arrested, taken to Court and there forfeited
the sum of ten dollars each to His Maiesty's
treasury. Now if a policeman has right to
go into the house of Chinaman (and the Po-
lice Court evidently considers that he has,
and arrest him for playing game of cards. he
can come into our own house and arrest us for
playing game of chess or playing on the
jewsharp for that matter, unless we happen
|
cradle and classical Instrument. Now it may
be said that this is all nonsense, that no police
man will do anything of the kind. We do not
suppose he will, but he might, and the law as
laid down by the Police Court would fully
Justify him in SO doing, and we wish to hold
our privileges under the law as q matter of
right and not as matter of favor We do not
care to owe our exemption from domicilliary
visits of this kind to the grace and favor of the
officers of justice. We wish in such matters
wish every man in the Kingdom, however poor
and humble, to enjoy the same protection as
ourselves
But to proceed with our review of the text
of the law. The next clause, forbidding the
keeping open of shops, stores, warehouses and
workshops, and the doing of any business,
labor or work, except work of necessity or
charity; we would be willing to have
stand about as it is. The wording of
this clause might probably be improved by
defining more clearly in some way, what is
meant by works of necessity or charity, but
otherwise we see no particular need of amend
ment. Thelaw in. this respect is copied from
the Sunday laws of other countries, and what
constitutes work of necessity and charity in
the sense intended by the law, if not deter
mined by our own Supreme Court, has been
well enough settled by judicial decisions
elsewhere.
The remainder of Section 2. consists of two
clauses, one forbidding any person from being
present at any dancing, public amusement.
show or entertainment, or taking part in any
game, sport or play on the Lords day, and
the other prescribing fine not exceeding ten
dollars for the violation of any of the provi-
sons of this section. The remarks we have
already made on the subject of worldly amuse-
ments and recreations, will sufficiently indi-
cate our views the subject of dancing,
shows, entertainments, etc., etc. The right
of the law making power of the government
to prohibit what are ORDINARILY known as
public amusements on Sunday, we believe to
be clear, but we do not believe it is expedient,
practicable or even desirable, except in few
exceptional cases, to do anything whatever
with such amusement and recreation as peo-
pie choose to indulge in on their own premises,
so long as the same do not annoy or interfere
with their neighbors.
Let us briefly recapituIate. The great ma
jority of the people of this country believe in
Sunday, desire an efficient Sunday law, and
therefore have a right to it. This is their
right because they are the majority, and be-
cause it is in accordance with their honest and
conscientious belief. This right they hold
and exercise in pursuance of well-established
principles of civil law, entirely independent
of the law of Moses, or the question as to
whether or no, or how far the Christian Sun
day is, or is not, the legitimate and authorized
successor of the Jewish Sabbath. We're the
majority of the people of this Kingdom Jews,
instead of Christians, they would have right
to make the same laws concerning Saturday
which the others now have right to make con-
corning Sunday, and were the majority Mo-
hammedans, they could substitute Friday for
Saturday with equal justice and propriety
The Sunday law now in existence here is OBJ