The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1888-08-16


nv the LEGISLATURE. Mutual criticism is
fair thing and while some Of the Judges
are thus criticising U.s. lit is In order to con
slider and express our opinions upon thelr
mowers and their methods of exercising the
same. In considering the criticisms OF
members OF the Supreme Court IN regard
to other departments and their complete
satisfaction with their own, am torclbly
| reminded of Robert Burns when he said
| in effect, Oh that some friend the git
| would gle US to see ourselves as others see
rs" [ believe that candid examination
| will demonstrate that the powers exer-
cised and claimed by the Cabinet and Leg
| islature will find their counterpart In the
| executive and legislative branches of any
| constitutional government, while the pres
| ent powers of our Supreme Court mani
| festIY exceed those of the Judiciary OF any
| other constitutional government on earth
II am weighing my words). Take, for
! instance, the Supreme Court OF the nlted
States of America. 1t is a court of enum-
| Grated powers, many important powers
| being vested exclusively III the State Courts
| of Final Appeal and with which the Unlted
| States Supreme Court has no more to do
| than it has with our Courts. On the other
| hand. our Supreme Court is the final
| court Of appeal on every question OF law
| and fact arising in this Kingdom, in what
| ever court arising. There is no court like
| the State courts with which it has to divide
| its final appellate jurisdiction. Again,
| compare our Supreme Court with the
! higher appellate courts OF Great Britain
| and YOU will find the power of our court is
| incom parably greater in that 1t has the
| power to declare an act of parliament void
| as contrary to the constitutional power
| unknown in Great Britain, where Parlla-
| ment is supreme. In the case OF British
| Colonies, an appeal lies from Colonial
| courts to the Home Government, while
| there is no appeal from our Supreme
| Court. Our Judges, in addition to the
| power of declaring acts of parliament void
| as unconstitutional power that the
| Judiciary of Great Britain has nOt-and IN
addition to its complete final appellate
powers in all questions OF law, WHICH the
| United States Supreme Court has not, has
/ the still greater power that exists IN very
| few courts, of holding the position of trial
| judges for all jury cases arising in the
| Kingdom and in all Iuity suits, with the
power of sitting with Their colleagues on
| appeal and casting vote on the question
whether their own decisions shall be SuS-
| tanned or not. | say; therefore, that some
| of the judges who are alarmed at the
powers exercised by the Cabinet should
also feel as much alarm at the powers
granted to themselves, exceeding as they
| do the powers of the Judiciary OF any other
| constitutional government that we know
| of. We should go slow before casting aside
| a bill which seeks to check the power of the
Court to exercise censorship over the
press to matters occurring within the
| judiciary department The fact is that the
power of the Supreme Court in its depart
ment is almost as absolute under the Con-
| stitutiOn and laws as the King
was in his department until the
| new Constitution was promulgated.
| As long as we had Kings who were
content to reign and not rule we supposed
We were constitutional Government, and
| it was not until we had a King who started
| in to exercise all the powers that he had
| under the Constitution, that We woke up,
and upon examination found that under
| the Constitution he was practically an
| autOcrat, and the reason that we had got
along with other Kings we'll enough was
| not due to any checks under the COnstitu-
| ton but to their own self-restraint. So too
| with the Supreme Court under the COnsti-
| tuition and the laws, the fact that the cOun-
| try has got along all right with the Judi
| ciary that it has had is not due to any
| check and control under the Constitution
and laws, but to the conservatism and self
| restraint of the men that thus far have
| constituted the Supreme Court. But, Mr..
President, the past few years have marked
| a change in that Court. Extreme power is
always bound sooner or later to lead to eX-
cess, and we now see an aggressive spirit in
| the Court that, not content with its present
| excessive powers, would take up and exer-
else new powers that thus far they have
wisely let alone. Under the leadership of
| Judge Preston, L say, the Supreme Court
has by a series of decisions practically
muZzled the press upon matters arising in
the Judiciary department, for it is not only
what they have actually decided but the
uncertainty as to what they will decide
and how far they will go, that reduces pub
lie newspaper men to personal lackeYS of
the Court, SO far as Judicial proceedings
are concerned. And we see the spectacle
of the editor of a newspaper going privately
to the Chief Justice of this Kingdom and
asking him if he could publish to US, the
citizens, certain article inveighing against
the introduction of certain Chinese women
into this Kingdom for purposes of prosti- |
I'm # 20 of thpCp boi,
up for perjury. The Judge being one to |
whom such practices are especially often !
sive, gave his permission that the public |
should have the benefit of the article, bat |
later on had to find the editor guilty at the |
instance of the prOcurer's attorney, of con- |
tempt within the rule they themselves |
had set up for articles less calculated to
enlist their sympathies.
There are other reasons why ! believe !
that this power of constructive contempt is
dangerous one to place in the hands of |
the Judges. Some OF the Judges with all |
the powers that they have under the Con-
StitutiOn do not seem to be able to cOnfne |
themselves to their duties as Judges Their
views and comments on legislation and |
politics are too frequently heard. | be-
ieve the day is not very far distant when
the political issues will cease to be with the
King and waning palace party and that |
serious differences will arise between the
people at large and the Supreme Court it
self. We thought it sufficiently important
to demand of the King last June that he
enter into covenant with his people,
not thereafter to attempt to influence legis-
latiOn or legislators. a similar undertak-
ing by some of the Judges, it seems to me,
would now be in order, and | hope the daV
is not far distant when any Judge detected
in using his influence, however Justly he
may think, for or against legislation Tex
cept by open message to the House or be-
fore its cOmmittees) will be impeached for
doing so. 1 charge that Judge Preston
has expressed views beforehand upon
matters in litigation before him or the
Court and on matters not actually before
the Court, when it was his duty as Judge
to keep silent. If he thinks I am doing
him an injustice, he certainly has the right