The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-08-16
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
Sixty-ffth Day.
WEDNESDAY,. Aug. Is.


Foster, Wall, Campbell, Widemann, Ma
kee Wilcox, Bertelmann; Reps. Hustace,
Dowsett, Kinney. Minutes read and con-
firmed.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
Rep. F. Brown reported one bill printed.
Noble Baldwin read the report of the
Finance Committee on the Likelike fun
eraI expenses.
The report was accepted, ordered to be
translated and printed.
Minister Thurston read the report of the
Coffee bill amendments committee. Laid
on the table to be considered with the bill
BILL AWAITING APPROVAL.
Minister Austin reported one bill sub
mitted to the KING for signature.
ORDER OF THE DAY.
Tax Assessors and Conectors-Third
reading of the tax assessors and collectors
bill
Minister Thurston moved an amend
ment providing that the Act take effect
April l, 1889. Adopted.
Passed as amended.
Contempt of Court-Third reading of
the bill: To define and limit the authority
D courts anu Judges 10 PUNISH lOI COLI
tempt in certain cases.
The Acknowledgement said that in cases
involving scandal, this bill will give i'm
munity to the press to publish proceedings
which might be damaging to the character
of litigants. He believed from an extern
Sive examination of authorities that the
position taken by the Supreme Court in
recent decisions was correct. The OCca-
sion of this bill is found in decisions given
i'll three cases within the past year and half.
(The cases referred to were the Creighton
contempt case, 2. &. ADVERTISER; the
CongdOn case, HAWAIIAN GAZETTE, and the
Chinese women habeaS corpus case, DAILY
HAWAIIAN GAZETTE.)
The Court had punished certain papers
in Honolulu for contempt OF Court. The
papers raised howl, and the howl was
promptly echoed from Boston. And the
members of the bar joined in with the news
paper men. Notwithstanding the howl,
none of these gentlemen have been able to
adduce a single authority or precedent
against the position taken by the Court.
They claimed that these decisions were
based on mOSS-COVered precedentS. 1t Is
curious fact, nevertheless, that we have
decision of exactly similar import, the
one on which our Court chiefly relied, de-
livered by the Vice Chancellor of England
as late as 1872 The Court has seen tit to
have more regard to the precedents of
English Courts and the principle of
English jurisprudence than to the Opin-
ions of Honolulu newspaper men or Homo
lulu barrsters. These English precedents
are invariably in the line that no news
paper shall shield itself behind the lib
erty of the press" from the consequences
of publishing matter of q scandalous, libel
lOus or otherwise unfair or injurious char
acter Similar doctrines have been main
tanned in the Courts of the United States.
We have a case in point in New Hamp-
shire, in which a newspaper was punished
for publishing the proceedings in a case
because the proceedings contained scan
dalOus and ibellOus matter tending to
prejudice a litigant in his reputation. 1t
was not always the speakers good fortune
to concur with the decisions of the Su-
preme Court nor was he able to agree with
certain gentlemen of the bar. However,
the Court and those who concur with it
find themselves in harmony with the pre-
cedents and practice OF Courts in England
and the United States. He would not have
things here as in the United States where
a person coming into Court has absolutely
no protection against being butchered by
the press. He moved the bill be indefin
itely postponed.
Minister Thurston said if he had been
ignorant of the circumstances that caused
this bill to be introduced he would have
been carried away by the argument of the
Attorney g eneral. But knowing what he
did, there is not bill in this House that he
would take more solid satisfaction in vOt-
ing for. He was only sorry that he had
not As votes and 48 more to cast in favor of
It, The AttOrney-General does not seem
to have very high opinion Of the mem
bers of the bar, and no wonder, as he can
not find single member of the bar who is
not opposed to him, in this matter In
the first of these constructive contempt
cases, Mr.. Justice McCully filed dissent
ing opinion which is as much stronger than
that of the majority of the Court as blood
is stronger than water. The Court had
OntSI6p DING
adopted an obsolete principle of the Eng
lish Courts. They had also cited with
much JUNCTION an Illinois decision, from
which they made elaborate extracts, and
on which their decision mainly rested.
Now, the joke of the thing is, that the Hi
noiS Court itself few years later reversed
that decision. The effect of the decisions
in our court has been that a reign of terror
has prevailed here among newspapers
They were afraid to give the public infOr-
nation concerning the dOings of courts, no
matter how proper such information be,
and due to the public as well. Court bust
ness was transacted with open doors, in
the hearing OF any one who might choose
to be present. Newspapers could not give
their readers the privilege of reading what
anybody might hear, for the simple reason
that they did not know when the court
might come down on them for construc-
tive contempt. In the Creighton case, the
paper had printed a declaration without
IlOl0 OF COluInOHG. lie present. AGIOf06V-
General who had got his name up tor that
kind of thing, was retained by the govern
ment to assist in prosecuting R. J. Creigh-
ton for that publication. The result was
the punishment of the editor by being
mulct in the costs of the suit In the
CongdOn case, one of the parties published
a letter i'll the GAZETTE setting forth his
version of how certain pigs had died on
board ship. The GAZETTE was prosecuted
for contempt in publishing the letter, and
put under penalties. In the Chinese wo-
men habeas corpus case, the Chinese
Society issued a manifesto to their coun- |
trymen, warning them against taking part
with the Chinaman at whose instance the |
women were taken off the San Pablo. The |
manifesto was translated and printed in
the daily GAZETTE, merely a matter of |
news, without note or comment The |
English version of this document was
placed, before publication, in the hands of |
the Chief Justice, who was asked if there |