The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-05-18

with which it has no connection. By
the clause IN question, the obtaining
OF goods on credit upon false preten.
ees Is made an offense against the
United States, upon the happening
of 5 subsequent event, not perhaps
IN the contemplation of the party,
and which may be brought about
against his viii, by the agency of
another. The criminal intent essen
tlaI TO the commission of q public
offense must exist when the act COM
planned of Is done; il cannot be i'm
puted to a party from subsequent
independent transaction There are
cases, it Is true, where 8 series OF
acts are necessary 10 constitute an
offence, one act being an auxiliary
TO another IN carrying out the erlml-
ma degree. But the present Is not q
case OF that kind. Here an act
which may have no relation TO pro
ceedings III bankruptcy becomes cri-
mInal, 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 il was within the
constitutional limits of COMPRESSION
al legislation TO subject person to
punishment for such transaction.
The Court answered the question In
the negative, thus holding the legis-
lati3n 10 be unconstitutional. And
we take it that the article that mo
er post faeto law shall be passed"
(Const. OF Z. S. of Art. II is the
one that inhibits such law.
The case before Us Is similar and
we think that the reasoning of Z. s.
V. Fox should be applied TO it Our
Constitution Art 16, prohibits the
enacting OF retrospective laws, which
We presume was intended to prohibit
or post facto legislation as well.
The failure TO keep usual and reason
able books of account which set forth
faithfully the state of ones, business
IN not HgaL.sRs ia. Sc, and our statute
only undertakes to make it q HlGlaRs
prohi5iEass upon the contingency OF
the person being made a bankrupt.
The emitting to do an act or the
doing of an act which are perfectly
innocent In themselves and which
are not required by any law to be
done or forbidden are sought to be
made punishable when and only
when a future event occurs which
has no connection with them This
violates the principle that aperson Is
not punishable criminally for what
was not criminal when done, and a
law which proposes to do this is
retrospective Ia its operation. See l
Bishop Grim. Law, Sec. 20S.
This statute under consideration
(Sec. of Chap. d, Acts OF 1881 is
not retrospective generally because
passed after the acts or omissions
charged against the bankrupt
happened,-for it went into effect
over three years before the bank
ruptcy of Ahung. but as we have seen.
it Is retrospective IN its operation
IL law should be passed making
punishable certain acts or omissions
when done or omitted to be done by
a person with the intent to defraud |
his creditors il would not be objec-
tionable, for in that case the act or
omission would be criminal IN itself |
and the act and intent would concur |
The case of C. S. V. Fox, contained |
another reason to sustain its holding,
in that the United STATES Congress
had only granted powers and among |
them the power to establish uni |
form laws on the subject of bank
ruptcies throughout the United
States and though it had power to |
enforce by suitable penalties all leg
islation necessary to the execution OF |
this power,-when an act committed
In one of the States has no relation |
TO the execution OF this power of the |
United States it Is not within the
federal Jurisdiction This additional
reason is not pertinent to our case
We answer the first question reser-
we'd in the affirmative.
To the second question we return |
q negative answer. Article or the
only excerpts cases OF |
impeachment and offenses within the |
of a Police or District |
Justice or in summary proceedings
for contempt from the general pro-
vision that mo person shall be |
held to answer for any crime or |
offense unless upon Indictment fully |
and plainly describing such crime or |
ofense.n The power OF a Circuit |
Judge sitting IN bankruptcy to pun
Ish the bankrupt by Imprisonment
On his examination or when ne ap-
plies for his discharge Is not one Of |
the exceptions, and the petition for
his examination or the objections TO |
MS discharge cannot be considered |
as an Indictment
We are obliged also TO answer the |
third question in the negative The |
petition OF the assignee alleges that
the bankrupt has failed to deliver to /
the assignee his cash book, the bank |
rupt claiming that he kept no cash /
book although he did keep other
hooks of account. The Circuit /
Judge found that he had kept no
cash book-which is not responsive
10 the allegation The failure to de-
liver the cash book il not one Of the
statutory grounds for summary pun
; n 1-rwzxxf 0f<hnnOh II =