Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1899-06-26
EFFECT OF JOINT RESOLUTION
HAWAIIAN LAWS CONTRARY
TO TIE CONSTITUTION
NEGATIVE quail
FlCATIONs.

to avoid the amendment of any
part or parts Of Hawaiian laws by
the Constitution of the United
States, enters into a considers.
ton of each Of the negative quail
fications attached by the Joint Re-
solution of annexation TO the oper.
alton of those laws. The language
of the Joint Resolution is as
follows:
"The municipal legislation of
the Hawaiian Islands not enacted
for the fulfillment of the treaties
30 extipguished, and not inconsist-
cd ,oih this joint resolution, nor
contrary to the Constitution of the
United States, nor TO any existing
treaty of the United States, shall
remain in force until the Congress
of the United States shall other
wise determine"
The Supreme Court holds that
each Of these four negative quail
fications, is merely declaratory,
and that none of them is inserted
for any purpose Of enacting legis.
lation, or positively affecting the
laws OF the Islands. The
Court assumes to find independ-
emit positive legislation elsewhere
in the joint res solution correspond
ing to the end of those negative
qualifications, excepting that
which relates to the Constitution
of the United States. As to that
qualification, no effect is allowed
to it by the Court which can con.
fict in any manner with Hawai-,
ian laws, upon the supposed
ground that Congress did not 10.
tend by that mere negative Ian
guage to legislate the Constitu
ton into these Islapds, but only
intended TO declare that the an
nexation itself was constitutional
The Court argues that the frs
negative qualification is merely
declsratory, because Congress ex
pressly extinguished the Hawai-
ian treaties. But the Court in
consistently fails to observe tina
Congress by that declaration die
not declare expressly anything
about the lars of the Islands, anC
according to themselves, those
laws must not be repealed by i'm
plication! If they are not repeal
ed, and the negative qualification
was not intended to annul them
then they are not annulled.
The Court says. in regard to the
second qualifying clause, that the
joint resolution expressly altered
Hawaiian legislation in regard
to Chinese immigration, and pre-,
sumaJly altered ii by implication ID
some respects! Whatr 1t seemt
remarkable that the same Court
talks in almost the same breath
about preSumable alteration Of Ha
araiian la,os by implication, while it
declares that the alteration or re,
peal of statute is not TO be I'M
Piled, if it can be possibly
avoided? But Congress said
nothing about Hawaiian la'o,
on the subject of immigration
but spoke only of it's own laws
If Hawaiian laws inconsisten
with the joint resolution are no
repealed and the negative quail
fication does not annul then they
are not annulled.
The same thing may be said a:
to lars Inconsistent with exis tins
treaties of the United States" N
laps of Hawaii are before men
toned in the resolution, and i
any of them are annuled as con
trary to any existing treaty of tn
United States, it is upon the sam
ground that those contrary to the
Constitution of the United State
are annuled, namely, that the.