The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-05-18

Upon principle, an set VIII ca Is no
al offence at the time ii is COMMITTEE,
cannot become such by any suisse
queDt independent act of the part,
with which 1t has 30 connection. 81
tie clause In question, the obtsinins
of goods on credit upon false prefer
ces IS made an Offense sgaiust ia,
Uol;ed States, upon the happening
OF 4 subsequent event, not perhap.
III the contemplation of the party
and which may be brought about
against his viii, by the agency oil
another. The Criminal intent essen
TIA! 70 the commission of a public
I uffense must exist when the act com.
| p.sined Of is done; it cannot be i'm
puted to party FROM d subsequent
independent transaction. There are
cases, IL Is true, where a series of
| acts are necessary TO constitute an
offence, one act being an auxiliary
to another in carrying oUt the crimi-
psi degree. But the present is Lot q
case OF that kind. Here an act
which may have no relation to pro
ceedlngs IN bankruptcy becomes cri
minsl, according Is such proceedings
may or may not be subsequently
taken, either by the party or by an
other" The question asked OF the
Court was whether it was within the
constitutional limits of COMPRESSION
al legislation to subject a person to
punishment for such transaction.
The Court answered the question in
the negative, thus holding the legis-
lstlon to be unconstitutional. And
We take it that the article that mo
ez post factO law shall be passed"
(Const. of U. S. 9 of Art. II is the
one that inhibits such law.
The case before Us is similar and
We think that the reasoning of U. S
V Fox should be applied to it. Our
Constitution Art. 16, prohibits the
eusctlng OF retrospective laws, which
We presume was intended TO prohibit
er post f,IeiO Legislation as well.
The failure TO keep usual aud reason
able books OF account which set forth
trutufully the state of ones. business
IN Lot Ha!HH3 ia Sc, aud our statute
only undertakes To make it q NAHUM
pr9hI6iiVs upon the contingency of
the person being made q bankrupt.
The emitting TO do an act or the
doing OF an act which are perfectly
innocent In themselves and which
are not required 10y any law to he
done or forbidden are sought to be
made punishable when and only
when future event occurs which |
has no connection with them. This |
violates the principle that person is
not punishable criminslly for what |
was no! criminal when done, and a /
law which proposes to do this is
retrospective 10 Its operation. See l 1
Bishop Grim. Law, Sec. POS.
THIS statute under consideration /
(Sec. Z Of Chap. %, Acts of 1889 is
not retrospective generally because
passed after the acts or omissions
charged against the bankrupt
hsppened,-for 1t went into effect
over three years before the bank
-upscy of Ahung, but as We have seen,
{ IS irrespective IN its operation.
II a law should be passed making
punishable certain acts or omissions
when done or omitted to be dOue by
! person with The intent to defraud
lis creditors it would not be Office
iOnsble, for 10 that case the act or
omission W uld be criminal IN itself
Ind the act aud intent wOuld concur.
The case of . s v Fox, contained
mother reason TO sustain its holding,
U that the United States Congress
lad only granted powers and smoug
hem the power to establish uni
Jrm laws on the subject of bank
uptcies throughout the United
states" and though it had power to
ufOrce by suitable penalties all leg
station Necessary to the execution of
his pOwer,-when an act committed
o one of the States has no relation
0 the execution of this power of the
United States it is not within the
sderal jurisdiction. This additional
esson Is not pertinent to our case.
We answer the first question reser-
ed in the affirmative.
To the secoud question we return
negative answer. Article of the
ouly excerpts cases Of
Impeachment and ffsuses within the
Of 2 Police or District
ustlce or IN summary proceedings
1r contempt from the general pro
ision that No person shall be
cid to answer for any crime or
fense unless upon indictment fully
nd plainly describing such crime or
1-n7e." The power of a Circuit
dge sitting in bankruptcy to pan
b the bankrupt by Imprisonment
D his examination or when he ap-
lies for his discharge Is not one Of
ie exceptions, and the petition for
IS examination or the objections to
"a discharge cannot be considered
, an indictment.
We are Obliged also to answer the