The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-06-27
THE RIGHT OF BAIL.
Argument on Writ of Habeas Cor
pus for 7. B. Walker.

pus for T. B. Walker.
Chief Justice Judd this forenoon
issued writ of habeas corpus on
behalf of Thos. B. Walker, one of
the three men charged with con-
spiracy, returnable at 1:30 p. m. be-
fore the full bench. At that hour
the Court opened, with Chief JUS
tice Judd and Associate Justices
Bickerton and Frear on the bench.
Marshal Hitchcock brought Thos.
B. Walker into Court. Mr.. A. S.
Hartwell appeared for the Marshal
and read the authority for the pri-
soner's detention, namely, a warrant
of the District Magistrate.
Mr.. Creighton opened for the writ
of habeas corpus. First he wanted
to know whether we we're acting
under a constitution. Are we living
under a constitution Is there
constitution in force9 Is the Con-
stitution of 1887 in force or are we
living under the Proclamation of
January 177 The Proclamation said
that the Constitution of 1887 re-
manned in effect except as it was ini-
mical to the object of the Provi-
sional Government, which was an
nexation of these islands to the
United States. The only power the
Government had was to conduct
public affairs and preserve the pub
lie peace under existing laws. 1t
had no power to deprive man of
liberty without the right Of bail
contrary to the principles of the
Constitution.
Chief Justice Judd said the Con-
stitution did not grant the right of
bail.
Mr.. Creighton admitted the Con
stitution did not say man had a
right to bail, but it did say that
every man had the right to liberty
and free speech.
Mr.. Hartwell objected to remarks
on free speech. Has the right of
free speech been interrupted?
Mr.. Creighton was not going to
pay attention to these little inter
ruptions. His remark was in reply
to a question by the Chief Justice.
While he did not say that bail was
mentioned in the Constitution, yet
it was comprised in the guarantee of
life, liberty and the possession and
enjoyment of property. He quoted
Judge Cooley in his Forum article,
in the opinion the Provisional Gov
eminent could not assume more
power than it had declared for itself
in the Proclamation. 1t has no
power to give to anyone the right to
say that a mans wife and children
might starve on the streets, because
their husband and father was i'm
INJURED in cell at the sweet will of
the Government.
The right of bail was inalienable,
it was part of the constitutional
term "liberty." OF course murder
or treason was not bailable. 1t was
deplorable, to say the least, that the
power of arresting political oppon,
ent on political charge, and OF
holding the prisoner without bail
should be conferred on the Attor
ney-General. If the matter of bal
we're left to the Supreme or Circuit
Court, that would be an entirely
different matter and in the public in
tercsts.
Mr.. Creighton then attacked tn,
Act of the p. CT. on another consti
tutional point-namely, that no Law
could have more than one objec
and that must be declared in it
title. When the law of 1892 wa
passed there was no such law as thi
Act on the statute books. Conse
quently the law of 1892 could not b.
amended in the manner attempted
This Act purported to be in amend
ment of Chap. VI. of the Pena
Code. But that chapter relate'
solely to treason, while this Act O
the p. G.. dealt with three distinc
Otfenses - treason, conspiracy ant
{ misdemeanor.
= The return of the Marshal to tn
, writ, which by the way is illegal in nc
A being sworn to, was faulty further i
S that it did not state what crime tn
t defendants conspired to commit.
l His main point, however, was a
to whether we had a constitution G
not. In no place in the Unite
States or England is the right COZ
u ferred on a prosecuting officer t
D determine whether or not bail sha
be granted. 1t was more power tina
the Gear of Russia or any othe
g ruler on earth possessed. When til
. prosecuting officer was put abov
u the Court it was high time to call
+ halt. 1t was violation of ever
principle that was held dear i
every man who had the blood of a
. American or an Anglo-Saxon in h
= veins.
u Mr.. Hartwell in reply said
l. opening that, in deciding wheths
: strong language was justified by ii
D. facts and the law it was necessary
. find what were the facts and VIII;
- was the law. To contend that IL
! Hawaiian Government existing t.
day, which protected the lives an
/ the property of the people, and /
4 whom alone the lives and the pr
" " perty of the people of this COUNT
r we're protected, had no right to {
i anything but administer the routil
20 affairs of the country under the la,
4 of the monarchy, except as the
y, - were consistent with the main obje
~ of the Provisional Government, W
20 absurd. Where had it been conten
a. ed that the functions of a COVER
. ment were restricted to merely a
i'm ~ nrinfr hn