The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-02-18

as shall seem BETTING the occasion.
The combined Councils have passed
Act 10 relating to contempts.n That
Act has the force of law. In pursu.
ance of their power to punish for con-
tempts they have attempted to secure
the presence of the respondent before
them, to answer a charge of contempt,
committed in violation OF their sta
tute.
Mr.. Hatch contended that the re-
turn of the Marshal alleged that he
held respondent, not only by virtue of
the warrant issued by Mr.. Dole, but
also "by order of said Councils"
True, that "order" is not set forth by
copy or otherwise, except the allega-
tion of the Marshal. But the allega-
ton in the return, if not disproved,
must be accepted as true. If true,
that disposes of the objection that the
Presidents warrant was unsanctioned
by the Councils, or that it was the
Marshal's sole authority for the re-
straint of respondent. The whole
question was narrowed TO the inquiry
whether the Councils constitute a
legislative body? If SO, and that
body is authorized to protect itself
from contempt, then the present pro-
ceedings are legal, and the respondent
should be remanded. The objection
to the warrant at the present stage
was premature. 1t is not necessary
to describe the offense in detail in the
warrant. A warrant of arrest to
''show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt" is, in effect,
charge of having committed that
offense.
The Attorney General Hon. w. o.
Smith) followed Mr.. Hatch, also in
support of the Government, and
urged the constitutional right of the
legislature consisting of the COM
bined Councils) to not only legislate,
but also to command the arrest of
persons charged with contempt of
said Councils. The sole power of the
Court in the present instance is con-
fined to an inquiry whether the war
rant in question was regularly issued?
If so, then the respondent should be
remanded.
Mr.. Ashford, in reply, asked what
opposite counsel meant by the "pOwer
of the Provisional Government when
contending that the Constitution shall
not now interfere with that "power."
Did counsel mean the power of the
Provisional Government to do as they
please? There are certainly no limits
upon their acts unless those limits eX-
list in the Constitution. How much
of the Constitution will exist at sum
down tonight if nothing but the ire
sponsible will of the Councils stands
between it and destruction? The
Court is confronted by the question,
"have we a constitution" and it must
1t he
a constitution, the action in arresting
Sheldon is clearly unconstitutional.
If we have no constitution, then not
any other member of either Council
without even the formality of reciting
q charge of criminal Offense against
him.
The amalgamation of the two Coun-
ellis in one legislative body was entirely
without warrant of authority. 1t is
forbidden by the terms of the PrOcla-
nation. 1t is no more competent for
the combined Councils to enact valid
laws than it would have been for the
late Legislature to do SO, after
having incorporated the Cham
Der of Commerce or the esti-
mable "Drei Hundred" into
their organization, to participate in
the law-making power. The Procla-
nation is the compact of the Provis-
ional Government with the people,
and cannot be ignored or set aside by
the former body at its mere whim or
Mr.. Ashford contended that no al
legged order of the Councils, as set
forth in the Marshal's Return, could
avail the latter, unless that order were
reduced to writing and appended to
the Return, so that its form and suffi-
cheney could be passed upon by the
Court. Besides, the Councils being
illegally amalgamated, could exercise
no legal power, and, further, their
"order'' could have no greater effect
than the bare warrant of the Presi-
dent. Two invalid acts or orders did
not constitute one valid act.
AT the conclusion of the arguments,
Judge Frear announced that he would
render decision as soon as possible.
Briefs will be filed to-day by the
respective counsel.