The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-02-17

WlUnSUanulnB UnIS dlinlSSlOn HtS ar
gument was largely based on the al
legged illegality of acts of this Gov
eminent. This was the Government
of the country, notwithstanding
anything in the. Constitution OF
1887. The monarchy no longer ex-
listed and all provisions Of the Con-
stitution inconsistent with the new
system we're expressly abrogated by
the Proclamation. Whether it was
a government by right of force was
not the question. 1t was under
stood that the Constitution of 1887
was still in operation in principles
consistent with the new order. One
principle Of that Constitution was
that the Legislature had power to
protect itself against contempt,
and although that provision may
not exist in terms its principle was
to govern whatever legislative body
was now in existence. Whatever
the range of their powers might be,
it must be conceded that the Exc
cutive and Advisory Councils were
legislative body. There was moth
ing in the Proclamation prohibiting
the Executive Council from sitting
with the Advisory Council. The
Court must take cognizance of the
public acts of the Provisional Gov
eminent, and Act authorized the
enactment of laws by the Executive
and Advisory Councils. 1t was not
necessary for the Court now to de-
fine the powers of the Legislative
body as constituted. This body has
passed Act 10, relating to contempts,
and he submitted that this Act had
the force of law. The Councils were
Legislative body, they had passed
an Act covering the case in court,
and this was within their powers.
That Act did not contravene any
principles of the Constitution of 1887,
but was in line with provisions in
that instrument relating to the
Legislature. Counsel had ignored
the vital allegation in the answer to
the writ, that prisoner was arrested
by the warrant of the President and
"by the authority of the Councils"
also that the warrant alleged an Of
Tense, to wit, contempt of the au-
thority of the Councils. 1t was not
necessary that the offense should
have been stated in detail. The case
was reduced, he submitted, to very
narrow limits, namely: Are the
Councils a legislative body9 and,
Has that body right to protect it.
self against contempt? All that was
necessary for the Marshal to state
in his answer was that he held the
prisoner by the authority of the
legislative body. 1t was not requir,
ed that he should go into the whole
question of the degree of authority
possessed by the Councils. 1t was
plain that Mr.. Dole did not sign as
Sanford B. Dole but as the Presi
dent of the Executive and Advisory
Councils. 1t is not commended
that the Legislative body would have
proceeded to try Mr.. Sheldon with
out stating the charge against him
The Court would decide whether
the issuance of the warrant was the
act of the presiding officer or that
of the Executive and Advisory Coun
ellis as legislative body. He main
tanned that it was an act Of the
Councils within their lawful powers
The writ should be dismissed ant
the prisoner remanded, as there wa
nothing contemplated by the Gov
eminent which would deprive Mr.
Sheldon of any of his rights. Mr.
Hatch cited authorities to the effec
that the judiciary could not inter
fere in action against contempt by 1
legislative body holding powers t,
that end, excepting where it appear
ed that there was nothing in tn,
charge which by reasonable inter
probation could be regarded as con
tempt. These citations were from
cases where the sentence was beins
actually carried out, but they %er
much more forcible when applied t,
case like that in hand where tn,
writ interviewed in merely prelimina.
proceedings.
w. o. Smith, Attorney General
contended that the Provisional Gov
eminent was the government of tn
country, and the Executive and AID
visory Councils constituted legis
lative body. He quoted authorize
from United States books to sho,
that the power of legislative bodie
toprotect themselves from contemp
was a constitutional principle. |
was not necessary to set forth il
the warrant of what the contemp
consisted, and this Court had II
: jurisdiction further than to ascel
tain if the warrant was regularly is
sued by the Legislative body.
Mr.. Ashford, in reply, said he ha
, heard from his youth up that tn
devil was accustomed to quote SCRIP
ture to suit his own purposes.
now appeared that the Provisions
Government could misquote judici;
scripture against the liberty of on
of the people. One of the decision
quoted by the Attorney General ha
been over-ruled by the Suprem
Court of the United States. Sti
he did not think that this point wa
in the question. Citations relatin
to commitments in England in til
dark ages had been made by TIL
= Government counsel, but he woul
: quote from American precedent i
I Cooley's Constitutional Limitation
There it was shown that the powt
of Legislatures to punish for COZ
tnn,,t ,rne 1;,,it,J 10 n,unr,