The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-06-28

the warrant must be complete il
Itself which this one was not.
In closing he submitted that The
Keynote of his position was as Il
whether we were living under a con
stItutional government or a despOt
ism. He claimed that we were now
under the constitution Of 1857 ant
that the Provisional government
could only take its place as far a:
matters of business were concerned
and that only pending the establish
ment of closer relations with the
United States of America. There
fore law cannot be passed to put the
discretion of issuing bail in one mans
hands, no matter who he was. Mr..
Creighton again referred to the al
legged fact that the encouragement
had more power than the Gear OF
Russia or any other potentate on
earth ever had. He submitted that
Act was invalid and the warra mt
defective. He claimed that Act SO
was also invalid and therefore the
prisoner should be admitted to bail.
Judge Hartwell, for the govern
ment, said it was of no Importance to
use strong language in the case at bar
where the facts and the facts alone
were to be considered. In effect, the
counsel claimed that the Provisional
government has no legislative power;
that its functions are merely TO keep
| the peace, pending annexation,
where it did not come into
conflict with the monarchy. Such
was the bald statement, and it was an
absurd one.
When has it before been said that
the points raised by counsel excluded
| the legislative function of the present
| government? He wished to empha-
4 oil hn for huf in of nf
constitutions not one could be found
| that limited constitutional principles.
The executive and advisory councils
of the Provisional government had
| otherwise ordered, as their acts
proved, especially in the matter of
| treason. What could the prisoners at
the bar complain of, when the penalty
for treason had been made lighter uu-
der the amendatory act mentioned by
counsel? The old law did not even
allow of bail; now it was discretionary.
The language of the learned counsel
which referred to the Gar of Russia
was clearly not applicable to the
present cases or the government. The
statements made were not facts. In
this case the legislative function has
been properly and legally established
and the new government has the
sworn support of the attorneys of this
court. 1t is the government de facto
and it stands in law, all that can be
said to the contrary Notwithstanding.
AS to the subject of bail it was as
old as English law. To show that dis
cretionary bail has been a rule in
English history he cited and read the
common law of England.
The suggestion that there was
politics in the present case had
nothing whatever to DO with the
form and functions OF the present
government under which we live
and these cases are brought. The
assertion that politics had anything to
do with the matter was preposterous
the Very name was q misnomer in
the present case.
AS to Judge Cooley's article in the
Forum magazine, read by the learned
counsel, there was little to say. He
had admired Judge Cooley's law works
and held him i'll high esteem as an
exponent of constitutional law where
he wa. posted on the facts which |
formed the premise of his argument, |
but in this case he denied Judge Cool |
ey's premise-his facts relating to the |
constitutional question in Hawaii were |
not sound-were not true. Others than /
Judge Cooley had read constitutional |
law, had made it a study, and differed |
from Judge Cooley. He especially |
disagreed with the learned judge on
the power of the United States to an
mex, as did many others. Judge
Cooley's views were unfortunately
the United States. They had not
been sustained in the thorough dis
cussion OF the question which had
lately taken place in the United
States senate. But whether Judge
Cooley was right or wrong, has moth
ing whatever to do with the legal and
functions of the Ha-
waiian government. The learned
Judge was evidently not well inform
ed on the conditions upon which the
present question turns.
The statement of counsel that the
Provisional government was not car
rIed on in the interests of the common
good, had no application whatever,
hat he could see, to the legal phases
involved in the case at bar.
In sense every charge of treason
and conspiracy was political charge,
but in this case there was no special
application of such charge.
He then referred to the legal pro-
cess in the present case and pointed
put that the return was legally good.
He held that the prisoners were prac-
tically still before the district court
and would remain so until next We'd
nesday, when the cases come up for
trial.
Mr.. Creighton made short reply,
going over portions of his former
remarks. He cited the Ho
Fon case and claimed that
he present warrant was INSULT
,ient, because it specified no offtnse
He read extracts from Judge Cooley's !
article, which, he claimed, sustained
1is view of the case
Judge Hartwell said he did not IN
lerstand that the article went so far
Is to exclude the legislative functions
If the Provisional government. He
claimed that Hawaii was under the
authority of the Provisional govern
nent. A citizen here had the same {
Ind as great rights as any Englishman
n the United Kingdom.
Mr.. Creighton claimed that the
government had no right
o fly in the face of the constitution.
After a short consultation the court
that owing to the import
Ince of the case judgment would be
eserved and the prisoner remanded
Until further order of the court.
Plantation Labor.