The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1893-06-28

mine for itself how broad and compre-
hensive shall be the object of a statute,
and how much particularly shall be
employed in the title in defining it,"
"There has been a general DISPOSE
ton to construe the constitutional pro-
vision literally, rather than to embar
rass legislation by a construction whose
strictness is unnecessary to the accom-
plishment of the beneficial purposes
for which it has been adopted"
The courts of California and Ohio
even go so far ltoo far, we think as to
hold that such provisions of the Con
stitution are merely directory and not
mandatory at all Washington vs.. Muir.
ray, Cal, 38S; PIN vs. Nicholson, 8
Oh. St III. In O'Leary VS.. Cook
Co., 2S Ill.,, 534, cited with approval
by Judge Cooley it was held that a
clause prohibiting the sale of ardent
spirits within four miles of a college
was so related to the primary object Of
an Act incorporating the college as to
be properly included within it,
1t is unnecessary to consider Sections
and 7 of Act S, for even if they are
not fairly within the object Of the Act
as expressed in its title, that would not
affect the constitutionality of the rest of
the Act. Cooley Const. Lin, p. G48.
There can be no question that the
ohense described in Section s, under
which the prisoner is charged, is prop
erly related to treason. Section I pro-
vides that persons who levy war against
the Government or adhere to its enc
mics, are guilty Of treason. Section ?
provides the penalty for treason. Sec
ton ) relates to the evidence necessary
for conviction. Section 4 provides for
the punishment of those who, having
knowledge of the commission Of trea-
son, conceal it. Section pro
vides for the punishment Of those
who conspire to levy war; &c,
against the Government. The of
lenses described in Sections 1, 4
and clearly are all closely related to
each other. They are all ofenses of a
Unreasonable nature-ofenses directed
against the existence of the Govern
ment-and are most properly joined
in the same Act, as much 50 as murder
and manslaughter, and even assault
and battery, might be properly united
under one Act. Further, for aught
that appears, the ofense set forth in
Section s may be considered treason
itself as much so as the ofense set
forth in Section l. Section merely
provides that those who do certain
things therein specified shall be pun
lshed in certain way, and while from
one part of the description of the of
Tense, it might be called conspiracy,
yet from the rest of the description it
might just as well be called treason. No
name is gwen to the Cffense in the sec
ton itself The ofense may be either
treason or conspiracy, just as certain
acts may amount to either murder or
manslaughter There is nothing in
the nature of treason to Confine it to
the acts mentioned in Section 1.
Under English statutes a great many
other acts have been made treason. Ii
is common form of penal statute to
provide that if person does certain
acts he shall suffer a certain punish
ment, without giving in terms any
specific name to the ofense. Chapter
6 of the Penal Code, entitled Urea.
son." in Section Io-like Section 4 OF
Act Of the Provisional Government
provides for the punishment of persons
who, having knowledge of the commits.
sion Of treason, conceal it. Being Of
the opinion that Act 3, 50 far as S. ctior
| s is concerned, is not in conflict with
Article II Of the Constitution of 1887
it will be unnecessary for us to say
whether that Article is still in force, Of
whether it has been or can be repealed
by implication.
As to the point that the arrest was
illegal because the warrant does not
fully describe the offense of which the
accused is charged, it is sufficient to
say that the ofense is described in the
warrant by reference to the affidavit
upon the same page Of the document
and that the affidavit sets forth the of
Tense fully and substantially in The
words of the statute. The affidavit i
part of the warrant. The description
of the off,ense need not be in any par
ticular part Of the warrant.
But counsel further contends that
the prisoner cannot be discharged h
ought at least to be admitted to bail
Act S8 of the Provisional Government
pr vides that in cases Of arrest for thu
ofense for which the prisoner is al
rested in the present case, bail shal
not be allowed without the consent O
the Attorney General The argumen
is that to refuse bail in cases of thi
kind is contrary to constitutional prin
ciples in general, and more particularly
to Articles I and 9 of the Constitution
Of 1887, relating to liberty. We ar
not aware that the right to bail ha
ever been he'd to be secured by tn
! general provisions relating to the RICH
of liberty under any constitution. Th
5 constitutions of most of the Unite
D States provide that persons shall, befor
conviction, be admitted to bail in a
but certain excepted cases, the eXceE
ton most generally being confined