The Hawaiian gazette., 1899-01-10

\ lbs rfn ufI.n.f eiaiH nef
HfHH fH f. m rafH ai
10 m .NHre tIi HNf n w
4 sisssl atuI .i.sff iaes tfst D.f
L ruH t.H ..I IUiffH Dos co. rit 1i b.
d. fnH IH HaHUI fH tHI.fa inmiffHiiHf Dol
- ti t' ....i lfst ..,.a t,si,s ise.
/. rENHI H..N.Hf HTHf fatr iHr ifH.e OIL
. f'n IHrHIHn mus a0 ff Hf f. tH'
III. ala.m .m.rt tfbt uIs rra,is.o8 = tt,
= ] fItaU. #.|"" HrI.T HHnFIIff alton o. HIfufIt
Z Iu f.. rH|Hr. of an ofrnuiI at lHtfudfa
Il 4s IHHfI.H i' 40 hmliaii'n uinn ih'
q pos Hf '.Hfifss 900 ri iN' HaHnl.lH
. ! Is....|HHHr. hereafter iufF not aHtu tH
. m. .. IH. sHHu1 ~ iH upfu to fhf uhtI
! fIHH already mentioned ~ frnl'nnr Ws
! rr.f .aI.H .u question UuEaturN. WIfU Is
| i0. Hu. .uatInr p0vsf io enact th.F rr.
a.U..Er LEGISLATION aud Obey th' man
H#f. uf fH, Resolution SO limit OF tImp
I. .THH.I and uutl thD lYsglsiatute ,hposss
, lH into eject The us, 81 tho words "up.
.H aH.H conditions o. Hf' nov ur MAY
HIN.AI AIrEH D" allowed. 90 indicates thar
t."ur'ts may hereafter alter those con.
HUan. NOW allowed by Tie laws ~ tha
United States but that until CDngr,ss
Hut" s" alter them tho conditions pre-.
a.H.'l h} ih" laws now iu force must
Un behalf of tho petitioner. the d,oI.
soon Boo th" case Of chew iip0uE W.. ths
United states, ll2 United States i3G. II re.
D
! that th" Resolution should not De given
Retrospective operation 20 as "a debAr
p'uuunciH from entering That decision
/ was based very largely upon tho fact
| that the Court, IN constituting the statutes
| th'r" under consideration. felt II - duty
To ~ conftrue them. " possible. as not
TO np'al In effect the provisions OF q
! prior treaty with china In that respect
| the case differs from that at bar for the
| Hawaiian Islands have no such treaty.
The existing United States treaty with
| china has been held not to bar just such
| legislation aS II her" Cont"nded against.
! The decision was also based on the
| ground that IN N" opinion Of the Court
| the Language used IN the statutes did not
| clearly Indicate an intention on the part
Of Congress to give the statutes a retro
| sp"'uNr operation and that consequently
they must u" held 60 operate prospective
y only. The correctness Of the rule there
laid down is, as already stated above, un-
| denied, hut the fact remains that after
| all IA" Court In this case must, az dli tho
Court in that case, hnd the Intention of
| Congress from the language Of the iustru-
mrut which is the subject Of construction.
tn" Adjudication In that case cannot
Therefore, 10" Of much real value In this
| case.
Having held that the United states
laws lu relation to th" Immigration Of
chinese are now iu force IN the Hawaiian
Islands and that such laws apply az well
10 cases where permits were issued prior
to the passag" o. IN" Resolution AZ TO
other cases, II follows, In my opinion.
mat this Court has no jurisdiction to
CUnstrua the United states laws or TO
pass upon the question of the validity OF
| respondent Browns appointment or OF the
extent Of his powers ~ "a Chinese In
sp'Ctor under those statutes or Of wheth-
| er he lawfully holds petitioners In his
custody. The case presented is that Of "A
| Federal officer, claiming 10 act under
Federal laws and iustlfying his detention
| Of petitioners by virtue Of the provisions
| OF such laws, and If cognIzablc only In a
| Court Of the United States.
The United States Constitution. Article
H. Section !, provides. "rhe judicial
| power Of the United States shall be vest
ed in one supreme Court, and In such in
f"rior Courts as Congress may, from time
TO time. order and establish; and, Sec
tiOu ., The judicial power shah extend
to all cases in law ana equity arising
under this Constitution. THE LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES. and treaties
made or which shall be made, under their
authority Under tn" authority thus
, conferred Congress has established Ger.
, tain inferior Courts, but none yet IL
these Islands This Court il not q
. vs. Edwards, XI, Haw. 57l
a ON" evil which the trainers of th'
United States Constitution sought Il
. avoid by leaving 1t solely to United state
| Courts to interpret and enforce Unite,
. | States laws, was the giving Of differing
~ or antagonistic Interpretations to III
s same law Intended to apply In all state
/ | alik" Icy the Courts Of different States
| which would cause confusion and unCcT
a tainty In the application Of such law an
q perhaps lead 20 disagrcements or even T.
| u breach Of the peace between dincrcn
y States. The present seems to me to be
n | case falling with the reasons for the iur
;. isdiCtiOnal provision In the Constitution
n The Courts OF tn" various States nigh
a | easily hold ana lay down conflicting view
i as to how the statutes now In question
; | ought to bc construed.
i. In Ahl.man W.. Booth and United State
- vs.. Booth. u Howard J06 n Judge of tn
| Supreme Court Wisconsin trs
- of those two cases Of habcas Corpu
claimed and exercised the right TO super
r Wis" and annul the proceedings of a Com
a missioner of the United States, and &
!, discharge u prisoner. who had been com
!. mittcd by the Commissioner for an of
= fcns" against the laws of this" Unit"
q StatcsD Government and this exercise o
l. power by the Judge was afterwards sane
h toned and affirmed by the Supreme Cour
n Of the state In the second case, 9TH
n State Court went u step further an
g claimed and exercised Jurisdiction owe
n the proceedings and judgment OF Dis
/ triCt Court OF the United States, and up
k ON a summary and collateral prOcceding
a by hahcas corpus, set aside and annulle
/ its judgment, and discharged prisonc
d | who had been tried and found guilty @
Il AN oncnsc against the laws Of the Unite
q States, and sentenced to imprisonment b.
r | the District Court In the decision
a. which Is an elaborate and well-considcrc
j. one, the Supreme Court of the Unite
States says: "Thcs" propositions are neN
| 7
. as well as of the States; and the suprem
o aCy of the State Courts over the Court
i of the United States, IN cases arisini
e | under the Constitution and Laws Of tn
Y United States, Is now for the first tim
7 asserted and acted upon in the Suprcm
( Court of "A State,
= IF the judicial power exercised In thi
= instance has been reserved to the States
g no off,nso against the laws OF the Unite,
G States can be punished by their ow
q Courts, without the permission and az
y COrding to the judgment OF the Courts q
Il the State In which the party happens I
r be imprisoned; for, II the Supreme Cour
)" Of Wisconsin possessed the power II ha
h | exercised in relation to offences agains
W the act oi Congress in question, II neCei
N | sarilN follows that they must have IN
u. sam" judicial authority In relation to an
I. other power of the United States. an
Df consequently, their supervising and cor
II | trolling power would embrace The erin
ID inal code of the United States, and e>
ie tend to offences against the revenue law
~ or any other law intended to guard III
10 different departments of the General COY
}. crnmcnt from fraud or violence. And
would embrace all crimes, from the higl
le est to the lowest including felonie
n which are punished with death, as We
50 az misdemeanors, which are punished b
imprisonment. And. moreover IL the pow
!" Wisconsin, II must belong equally t
;" every other state IN the Union, when IN
> prisoner Is within its territorial limits