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

1t is further urged that, since Section
9 Of Act 3 in terms repeats Oh. g of the
Penal Code, Act 3 itself which is by
its title only an amendment Of Ch of
the Penal Code, must also be repealed.
If this we're so, the repeating Section 9
would also be repealed, that is, it would
repeal itself (Which would be absurd).
And if it were itself Of no effect then it
could not repeal Oh. of the Penal
Code (Which would also be absurd).
1t would be to argue in a circle, The
argument would be as follows; Section
9 repeats Oh 6, and therefore Act 4,
and therefore Sec. 9, and therefore not
CHI 8, which is contradictory to the
first proposition 1t was the manifest
intention OF the legislative body to
amend the law relating to treason, by
substituting Act 3 for Ch. 8 Of the
Penal lode. TO sustain counseIs
views would be to repeal the entire law
relating to treason, which would be as
far as possible from the manifest inten-
ton OF the legislative body Taking
the whole law together, it may well
stand, although carelessly drafted
Where an amendment is intended to
take the place Of a preceding Act it
implicitly repeats it. So where the Act
is amended so as to read" in a pre-
scrlbed way. Endlich, Interpretation
OF Statutes, Sections G95, 100. If an
amendment can repeal the preceding
Act by implication and yet itself stand,
certainly it can also stand where the
preceding Act is expressly repealed.
There is the strongest kind of pre-
sumption against the existence of that
species of absurdity in the intention Of
the Legislature which would consist in
design to defeat its own object Yet
it not infrequenty occurs that one
portion or provision Of a statute, it liter
ally or even naturally construed, would
practically nullify the whole, or some
material portion, Of the remainder of
the act, with the effect of defeating its
obvious purpose. In cases Of this de
scription, it is a settled rule of consuuc-
ton, flowing from the obvious absurdity
Of any other, that such an interpreta-
ton shall, if possible, be placed upon
the statute, ut magis odleat guam
Peyedt"
"a declaration in the last section Of
an act that all acts or parts of acts re-
ating to the subject matter thereof
should be repealed from and after the
time when the act should take effect,
would not be construed as a repeal Of
that act, but Of all others upon the same
subject matter" h., Section eos The
repeating section need not be referred
to in the title Of the act. Cooley,
Const, Lin, I45.
1t appearing that T. B. Walker, in
whose behalf the petition is made,
| is held under a valid warrant Of arrest,
issued by competent authority, for an
ofense which is not bailable under
Constitutional law, he is hereby re-
manded to the custody of the Marshal,
c. CREIGHTON for petitioner
A. S HARTwELL for respondent.
Honolulu, June 20, 1898.
AS soon as the final announce
ment had been made Marshal Hitch
cock escorted Walker to the Police
station, where he was Joined by
Sinclair and Crick and taken into
the Court room. Judge Carter was
ready and the hearing of the charge
of conspiracy was at once COM
menced The prosecution was rep
resented by the Acknowledgement and
A. S. Hartwell while the interests of
the defendants were cared for by
Chas. Creighton, A. P, Peterson and
| J. A. Magoon.
The Court room was crowded with
spectators who occupied every inch
of vacant space, even appropriating
the seats usually delegated to the
use of the officers, attorneys and
reporters.
Before proceeding Judge Carter
stated that before any proceedings
in the present case were had it was
ARRANGED between him and Judge
Foster that he was to preside on
| TUESDAY, Wednesday and Thursday
of this week, that they had notified
the attorneys to that effect and that
Mr.. Creighton had answered as
follows: "With reference as to
whether yourself or Mr.. Carter
should sit at the examination oil
+ Walker ct al tomorrow.
CATER consultation with my asso-
ciates | shall leave that entirely to
yourselves, neither Directing nor con-
senting on behalf of the defendants
to Mr.. Carter's sitting. CHAs
CREIGHTON.
For the prosecution Judge Hart
we'll stated they had no objections
whatever to offer.
The case opened with the reading
of the complaint; the defendants Of
fering an objection to it that it die
not state a definite time or place o
the commission of the offense, anC
also that it virtually charged fou
offenses in place of one. These wer'
overruled by the Court.
The first witness for the prosecu
ton was one of the men from tn,
| Boston named Orlick, who testified
that he was acquainted with the de
, PENDANTS, had met them at diver