The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-07-20

4. Abolition of the distinction between
the Police and District Courts
s. Making the common law of Eng
land as interpreted by English and
American decisions, authority in the
technical sense.
6. The substitution of summons for a
warrant in the case of some petty misde-
meanors.
There are of course other features Of
i'm portance in the bill, but those enumer-
ated are among the principal
The ACCESSIBILITY of creating Court OF
purely appellate jurisdiction, of a Su-
preme Court in the true sense, is a mat
ter which has been agitated here for
some time, and it was largely with this
in view that the Commission was APP
pointed. In explanation of the object
we cite the following from the Report of
the Commission:
1t is understood that this Commission
was desired by the Legislature to devise
and suggest such changes in the Organlza-
ton of the Judiciary Department as would
make the Supreme Court purely an APP
DeIIdJc NOuIU, anu IlOG, as lONI OIlS W COI =
rect errors made by its own members as
well as by subordinate courts. 1t is UNI
doubtedly true that such change would
bring satisfactory results. 1t is hardly to
be expected of any court that 1t will re-
gard the rulings of one of its own MEM
6ers with the same impartiality, when re-
viewed on exceptions, errors or appeal,
it would be likely to regard the rulings of
strictly subordinate tribunal. The natural
desire of Judge to be sustained III his
nfE -t.1TpN Inc
ings of his associates, places no light bur-
den upon the party who takes case be-
fore the court for reconsideration. The
difficulty is more apparent in cases which
require nice distinctions to be drawn, and
that principles be formulated without the
aid either of statutes or judicial precedent.
In cases in which a decision, although
wrong, can only be shown to be wrong by
elaborate exposition, the tendency of the
judicial mind is to adopt the reasoning of
an associate, rather than that OF counsel
for the appellant.
The above quotation makes it very
clear just why a change in the Organiza-
ton of the Supreme Court is desirable.
That the case should be as stated is a
fact not derogatory in any way to the
Court. 1t is an inevitable consequence
of g principle of human nature that
Court sitting on appeals as ours does,
should not be able to do it's best work
1t cannot be agreeable to judge to
say the former must be quite as disagree
able as the latter. Nothing but very
clear necessity would probably induce
the Court to do it. 1t will be seen that
this places the judges sitting on an APP
peal in a false position at the start.
In England it is true Judge may sit on
the same case twice, but never, it should
be observed, in a Court of final resort,
and always with a large number of
Judges some of whom may be members
of different Court. OF course the evil
is less in Court of seven judges than in
one of five, less still in a Court of thir-
teen. But in a Court of three or even
of five it is probably serious enough to
hamper the administration of justice.
On the whole, we believe that combining
the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to
the consideration of appeals is going to
prove distinct gain to the efficiency of
our judiciary system, and we are in favor
OF it accordingly. Consideration of mere
expense should not, as the Report we'll
suggests, be allowed to interfere with a
high object OF this kind-althOugh if the
legislators continue to scratch each
others backs " as vigorously as they
seem to be doing at present, it is diff
cult fO see where the money will he
forthcoming from.