The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-02-12

/ Wall. S. Mr.. Justice Field SAYS: AL
sorts of restrictions and burdens at,
imposed under the Police power aud
where these are not in conflict Will
any constitutional prohibition or fun.
damental principles they cannot bt
successfully aSSailel in judicial tri-
bunal. But under the pretense of
prescribing a police regulation, the
State cannot be permitted TO encroach
upon any Of the just rights of the
citizens which the Constitution in
tended TO secure against abridgO-
ment" Judge Cooley SAYS "the limit
10 the eXerCiSe of the police power
must be this; the regulations must
have reference 10 the comfort, safety
and welfare Of Society.N ConSt, Linn.
7l9.
Ia re Jacobs, 9S y. v, Ito, the
Court said 1.-THE Police power is not
without limitations and in its eNer-
else the Legislature must respect the
great fundamental rights guaranteed
by the Constitution. Ii this was
otherwise, the power of the LegiSla-
ture would be practically without
limitation. Generally il is for the
Snd regulations are needed 10 protect
the public health and secure the pub
lie comfort and safety and while its
measures are calculated, intended,
convenient aud appropriate TO accom-
pliSh these ends, the exercise OF its
discussion i not subject TO review by
the Courts. But they must have
some relations 10 these ends
under the mere guiSe of police
regulations personal sights and pri
waite property cannot he arbitrarily
invaded, and the determination of the
legislature Is not final and Conclu-
Sive."
''Nyhat are the subjects of the eN-
erciSe Of the police power is clearly
judicial question"
ToUH Of Lake Tje,C Is. Rose HiN
Co., 20 H., 191.
See People Is. ellison. 100 \. ", $50.
The Courts must be able to see that
the regulation which interferes with
personal liberty and private property
without due process of law has in fact
some relation To the public welfare
and that its protection Is aimed at
and thatiti Is appropriate and adapted
10 that end.
The clause requiring that the books
al account shall be Kept in the Hawa-
iian, English or some European lang
uage is equally Objectionable. The
fact that the books are kept in some
one of these languages will afford no
security against the preparation OF
frauds. There is no intrinsic quality
in these languages that makes dis
honesty less possible in them than in
others not in this honored class. The
Legislature cannot, without infring-
ing upon liberty and the rights of
property. thus discriminate. The
argument that the Chinese language,
which is evidently the one that is
10 be sought TO be prescribed by this
Act, Is occult and understood by few,
other than the Chinese themselves, Is
of no force. for there are European
languages that are IS little understood
in this Kingdom Is Chinese and yet
books of account are allowed by this
Act TO be kept in them
As before stated, the books Of &c
count aS evidence in judicial iuveSti-
cations, would have TO be translated
into language understood by the
Court and jury, whether written i'll
Hawaiian. Greek, Welsh or Hun
-aTiaB, which are privileged by the
Act under consideration, or whether
written in Chinese, japanese, Persian {
y Samoan, which are prohibited by
L.
Neither the public safety, health or
welfare would be promoted by this /
egislatiOn requiring books OF account |
o be kept in the Hawaiian, English 4
II some European language. The /
Act would, on the contrary, impose a /
,TievOuS burden upon all who happen /
lot 10 know any Of these favored 4
or who are too ignorant TO
Keep any books of account.
Ii l. plainly in violation Of the Con-
- q restriction upon the
liberty OF the person and his right of
and possessing property and I
annot be sustained.
The second section which cOnierS
he authority upon the Minister of the
his duly authorized repre-
antativeS, the Marshal, or any Of his
equities, or any Sheriff or Deputy
heTiff to enter the licensees place of
usineSs and inspect his books Of ae-
cunt to see if they are full, true and
oTUeCt and If they are kept in the
hawaiian, English or some European
.nguage Is 30 pslpably IN violation
{ Article L Of the Constitution which
that Every person has
BE right 10 be secure from all unTea-
Jnable searches and seizures of his ,
ersOR, his house, his papers and {
fects,n etc, a 10 require no COM
lent. The AttOrney-GeneTal init !
lated at the argument that it would
2 difficult to sustain the cOnstitu- {
onality OF this Section.
The power TO subject q person to the /
sits OF the police TO overhaul and {
.rutinize his books Of account savOrs :
the IRqUiSition and OF the Star :
hambeE and might prove To be an [
strument OF oppression and totally
Ibversive Of the liberty Of the sub {
the power 10 examine 1
,Oks OF account 70 see If the Act i q
implied with Is equivalent To a I
production OF evidence [
-ainSt the individual and i in direct 7
Olation OF Article OF the COnstitu- {
IN, which prescrises that " No per
n shall be compelled, in any Grim
al case, 10 be witness against !
mseIf-'
See Boyd Is. Z. 8, 1l6 [. 5, SIG, +
ID ReE. u. HdcfdrEGae, decided By
3 Chief Justice OF iris Court March
1888 n
We find ii impossible to sustain this e
Il and are obliged TO hold that every :,
,tiOn Of il Il unconstitutional and d