The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-06-10

tory distinguished from remedial provision \ decaratorv
statute is that Is intended doubt
lstence effect of existing rule Of law y remedial
Is that intended alter existing establish
rule Now take the provision question. pur-
pose is expressed in these words:
The municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands
shall remain in force until the Congress of the United States
shall otherwise determine
This we have is merely declaratory what the rule
would be in the absence any provision subject There
four qualifying clauses The first
exacted for the fufnen of the treaties 50 cxtin-
euished."
1t provision inserted continuing Ila
waian laws for the sake of truth and the
cetion In the first of the paragraph question the
Hawaiian treaties expressly repealed Hence, it
sry insert the qualifying question and this in
seron merely declaratory
The fourth qualifying clause Is:
Contrary any existing treaty the United States
We may say Of very much said of the first
clause BY the of the first of the paragraph the
Hawaiian replaced by the United States treaties
In other words the United States treaties expressly extended
Hawaii and therefore insert the quica
ton them and this insertion merely decaatory
The second qualifying clause is
And not inconsistent with this joint resolution.
The Joint Resolution expressly altered Hawaiian municipal
legislation respects instance, respect Chinese
imngration and presumably altered it by implication in
respects. necessary insert this qualification
for the sake of and the insertion merely DECLARE
tory.
portion and three of the qualifying clauses of
provision question found be merely decaatory Is
it not likely that the remaining clause,
Constitution of the United States, also
intended merely decaatoy and remedial! Were
all these quan inserted for the sake of exactness
and and and for the
pose taking this method Of enacng independent positive legs
any provisions the Constitution extend Hawaii
during the present transition PERIOD it would
be necessary requisite qualification And might
we'll be argued that provisions of the Constitution did
extend for annexed and held and
governed by powers by the Constitution either
pressy by implication Congress at least would not by omit
ting question subject itself to the suspicion
that intended exercise not conferred by the oos
ton clause intended to be merely decaratoy
remedial only such provisions would be IN force here us
would be in force popo ryor and by the reasoning in the
Peacock provisions respecting grand rles and trial by
jury would in force here during the present transition
neriod In other words the Constitution concerned
Congress intended temporarily force all the Tia
municipal legislation that 1t could and l not intend by
the clause question extend the OF the Costu
ton here fully than they would be IN force here er popo
riqo, And Congress well knew that whether the Constitution
was in force in the territories uness for purposes of
binary legislation it in force under clrcu
like the present. for not only must Congress be presumed
TO know the recognized governing of acquisition OF
territory and the peceen III United States history from the
+e asse1 in connection with which the Resolution
in question apparently in part copied but the Resolution 1t
self RECOGNIZES this 1t expressly provides for the
confirmation of the Notwithstanding the
provision of the that al duties, mposts and
cises shall be uniform throughout the United States If Con
es supposed that provision of the Constitution was IN force
D, during PERIOD certainly would not have
attenlted to continue the Hawaiian customs laws
We are therefore of the opinion that Congress did intend
nv the Joint Resolution extend to these islands
the fifth and sixth amendments of the Constitution OF the United
States and that upon the reasoning of the decision III the Pedcok
.aso IN force mere pIOEIo