The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1883-03-31

manifest that the petitlo".l
.annor become n subject Of this hlnguo" re-
has completed the full term OF y. y,Le other
sidence here. and il able to comply 80 =. nstition.
requirements OF the Act. liz u urEeI oipdir Of Tho
eris counsel tlat this Act shuts on the ~" ram
Court from being reinforced by at'o'"e9 in
abroad, aud tht- ttcrc 10 created " 49, This
the present B,r % about a dozen lneHHhoi, that
appears 20 be true. for II Is qulte u 49,, 20 Eve
any attorney from abroad would consen'
years OF inactIon IN this Kingdom !"
entitled to practice in our Courts uw.;ian
But the law il imperative none nut !.
subjects can be admitted to practice here anu w
are not to construe an Act OF the LeGS
out of existence without good reasons tnerelvi
IL ia said that as this section (lOoo) OF ~
Code does not cay that none but those VINO ~
Hawaiian subjects are TO be admitted 10 pt""
the Court is thereby prohibited from AohItHDs
others who are not subjects. lhiS eohs'ts
would make the provision we are consloeInb
meaningless. We regard these words /" pelhg
! Hawaiian subjects as creating a condition pre-
/ ccdent. and "a imposing the Limitation upon tue
! general npwcrs of the Court TO admit pracuIh",
ers-to admit none but subjects. We understand
il To be universally the practice IN other coun'L,es
TO admit as attorneys none but citizens, ana TINS
ias been the course followed IN tins country
without question until the enactment OF the Ia"
making naturalization dIthcult.
But it Is said that this law is merely directory
and not mandatory. We do not so under
stand it. Statutory acquisitions arc deemed
directory only when they relate TO some inmate
rial matter, where n compliance IS a matter Oh
convent &c rather than of substance.
People V. Schcrmsrhorn ~ Barb. 09S, Judge
Cooley SAYS that the particular provisions OF
statute are To he regarded ~ directory merely
when they are giving directions which ought to
be followed. hut not ne limiting the power IN
respect To which the directions are given, so that
it cannot be eifrctunlly exercised without observ-
in. them. Cooley Const. Lin. p. "a.
d. There are cases where whether n statute was
to be regarded us merely directory or not was
made to depend upon the employment or fail
ing Ia employ negative words which imported
that the act should he done in n particular manner
or tine. and not otherwise. The use oil such
words il o!Ien very conclusive, that the statute
was not destined to be mandatory"
Id. p. IS and Potters Dwarris p. 22l, 22I.
The provision we arc now considering seems to
us to be compulsory and TO leave no discretion IN
the Court, none OF the a~djudged cases We can find
sustain IA contrary view.
1t is said that the Acts referred 10 are mol
en~croachments upon the judicial authority that
the Court has an inherent power to say who are
suitable to be admitted to practice before II.
While recognizing the force oi this. II is alsC
true that II IL the duty OF the Court to admit the
binding force OF n law restricting practitioners, il
reasonable. and We cannot ray that the restric-
ton nl a right to practice law in our Courts e
subjects If unreasonable, however inconvenient II
may be. The care would stand differently ", by thu
operation Of the Acts Of the Legislature, unfl
persons should be thrust into the Bar OF tho
Court, or tie Court and community ~altogetbel
deprived of the advantage Of a bar OF professional
excellence.
See matters o. Goodell 20, Am. Reports. AZ.
Numerous references are made in argument q
Treaty stipulhtIons. For Cxample-Act 2 Of th'
Briiirh Treaty, that = British subjects in thin
Kingdom shall ENJOY the anne exemptions anC
privileges az native subjects" From the contexl
it is evident that this refers to privileges respect
ing residence and trade ia THE Kingdom and no
to the privilege Of practising law. Also 9Th Act.
i'd, Where the right Is guaranteed OF free anC
open access TO the Court of Justice, for the prose
cutinn and defense Of their just rights. and tht
liberty of emf lpying in all causes the advocnier
attorneys or agents Of whatever description whom
they think proper, = etc. This secures the RICH
to employ counsel. a right not recognized u
ancient times, but we think il docs not mean tia
any person not II licensed attorney can be forcel
upon the Court ms Il practitioner.
We are therefore obliged TO hold that tn
petitioner, not being a Hawaiian subject, canno
he admitted to practice at this Court.
A. Francis JUDD,
LAWRENCE McCULLY,
BENZ ii. AUSTIN.
a. S. Hartwcll for petitioner, Atturney-G Genera
Preston per contra.
Hnnnl,I, Afa-oI OF 1000