The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-04-03
MODERN IDEAS ABOUT LAW AND
OTHER THINGS.

themselves TO legitimate lnIerenceS
from their assumed premises, or
avoiding the conspicuous exhibition
Of petty prejudice or personal spite. .
a lIodcruer, IN Mondays BulJe- +
tin, opens his communication as fol
lows: Thanks TO the well-developed /.
opiatic suil1er Of the Port Surveyor
and his good satellites, the American
bark c. d. Bryant will presumably
| be seized by the Hawaiian Govern
ment" a little later on we find the
following: The argus-eyed Gus
/ tom House officials have uprooted
uuiuteutioually and brought to the
/ light Of day and the world one ofthe
most Anticipated fossils in law that
ever disgraced the statute book Of
any civilized country"
The law under which the Bryant
was confscated may be an oppres-
sive one, and not in harmony with
the general current of Legislation in
countries having more extensive
commercial relations, but we are by
no means certain that such is the
case. These are questions of fact,
and "a MOderner" does not offer
scrap of evidence in support of any
such proposition. But whatever the
law may be, it is by no means ''anti-
/ duated" or q fossil" On the con
trary, it was passed in 1886, or less
than three years ago, during the
palmy days Of the good Mr.. Gibson
and his liberal minded and progress
sive administration. If our memory
does not fail us, Paul Neumann,
ESQ, was at that time Attorney
| General, and generally understood
to be the father of the law. There
is, however, no inconsistency in Mr..
| Neumann's appearance as counsel
for the owners Of tne hbelled vessel,
the question at issue on the trial
being, not the merits of the law in
any way, but whether, in this partic
ular instance, it had been violated.
How petty, how contemplate, is
the fling at the Port Surveyor and
his assistants, and how small must
be the mind which can condescend
to the writing and printing of such
sorry stuff. A public officer dill
gently. and as the result has shown ,
successfully performing his plain
duty in searching for contraband
, goods, is described as exercising
- well developed opiatic sniffer."
His assistants are " satellites" Per
haps this Z" Noderner" regards the
efficient performance, by government
officials, of the duties they are paid
for, and have sworn to perform, as
one of the "antiquated" and fossil
ideas which are not in harmony with
the spirit Of this progressive age.
Says Moderner:" AN American
vessel loads in home port, ships
I her crew and arrives in Honolulu.
One man on board hides one tin or
one thousand tins of opium on the
vessel Ut does not matter.) The
ship is searched, the drug is found,
consequently the ship reverts to the
Hawaiian Government"
Whether Intentionally or other
wise, the foregoing is an altogether
incorrect and misleading statement
of the case at issue. A vessel is not
seized because one man, or several
men for that matter, have concealed
opium on board. Seizures of opium
upon the persons, or in the quarters
of passengers and crews arriving at
this port are constantly being made,
and no one thinks of holding the
vessel responsible To work such a
result it is necessary under the law,
that the opium be concealed Sin
false bulk heads, false bows, double
sides or bottom, or in any secret or
disguised place whatsoever con
structed in such ships or boats, etc"
The pith Of the matter is in the
word CONSTRUCTED" In short, the
cOncealment must be in some place
which is structurally a part of the
vessel, and which therefore cannot
be used for such purpose without
the strong presumption of either
guilty knowledge or gross negIi-
/ gence, on the part of the master.
. Whether "ALoderner' is aware of
the fact or not, the responsibility of
owners of vessels for the acts of
their captains is a very we'll under
stood and recognized idea in mari
time law. furthermore, the Bryant
is not the first vessel confscated in
Honolulu for opium smuggling.
If the Acknowledgement believed
that the law had been violated, he
had but one course open to him, and
that was to prosecute. The issue Of
( the case before Judge Preston is his
. sufficient justification. The decision
of that Judge is subject to a review
10y the full bench, and it is absurd
. to suppose that a majority of our
Supreme Court have that bias