The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-06-15
THURSDAY, JUNE Is, 1898.
CONSTITUTIONAL OPINION

o"i cOuhoo WHOM ohJ COuSJlUuLlOudl
question comes into controversy
there. His works are among the
best thumbed authorities in the law
library of the Judiciary Department.
He is recognized in the States as
one OF the ablest living jurists.
Judge Cooley has spoken on the lIa-
waiian annexation scheme, and Ire
condemns it without qualification,
The deliverance of the eminent
judge appears in the Forum. A brief
review of the paper from the Chi
cago Herald appears in this issue,
which will give our readers some
idea of tho grounds of Judge
Cooley's condemnation. Men of
ordinary comprehension here have
wondered at the plenary powers as
sumed by a government calling it
self provisional" Judge Cooley
points out that those powers are
usurped, that provisional govern
ment" in law is something different
from what has been set up in Houo-
lulu. A "p.g." is intended only to
preserve order, pending the peoples
determination of permanent form
of government or their selection of
persons to administer affairs under
such form. 1t has nothing to do
with far-reaching policies affecting
the destinies of the present and
future generations of the country's
inhabitants. They seem to know
more about the proper running Of
"p. g." in Venezuela than in
Hawaii. In that country the
present "p. g.' has just requested
President Crespo to continue at its
head until the elections shall decide
whom the people want for their
rulers.
Our provisional government de-
clared at the outset that the main
object of its existence was to nego-
tiate a treaty of union with the
United States. Judge Cooley, speak
ing from the constitutional point of
view, says that it is not within the
province of provisional govern
ment to thus dispose of the country
in which it is situated. Abstract
principles of constitutional law,
however, are probably not regarded
by the present military rulers of
Hawaii as of any more force than
the concrete constitutional law of
the land. They solemnly proclaimed
at the beginning that the constitu-
tion as they found it would continue
in effect, excepting such parts there
of as were inconsistent with the con-
ditions produced by the abolition of
the monarchy. Yet in their admin
istration they have frequently ignor-
ed and violated principles of the
constitution which had no essential
connection with the monarchical
system. Had the provisional gov
ernment submitted the question of
union with the United States to the
ballots of the people, it would have
been within constitutional lines
although welding revolutionary
power. For there is law to govern
revolutions, which are recognized
contingencies in human affairs.
Where no law of any kind is re-
spected by successful revolutionists,
there system is at an end and
anarchy begins.
Judge Cooley's dissertation on an
nexation has perhaps more import
ance in the question it raises as to
the limitation of the constitutional
power of the United States regard
ing the acquisition of new territory,
than in its discussion of the right or
wrong of the scheme in the circum-
stances of it's inception in the Ha-
waiian Islands. The constitutional
ity of annexing these islands had al
ready been disputed by able essay
lists, but few if any authorities can
bring more weight to bear upon this
phase of the subject than Judge
Cooley. His eminence as consti-
tutional authority is attested by the
fact that many leading papers of
the United States give editorials on
his paper in the Forum, which are
composed almost wholly of verbatim
extracts from and synopses of his
arguments. This shows that the
arguments are regarded as SO com,
plete and conclusive that comment
thereon would be both superhuous
and supererogatory.
|
Judge Cooley on Annexation.