The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-11-16

Int the words Several States 1t used them in
which the distinction have been emphasized and 54
matters such as appeals writs of and removals Of
provided for, the law to winch IN respect State
was known differ greatly from that IN respect to Te
and cannot be supposed that Congress acted
as to provide that both of law should and tb
it to the courts to select which Congress itself inendoI
the selecting by inserting this clause. Furthermore
laws referred in this clause contain the words States
Terrtories" used in their proper and Congress
ably continued them in this clause in the same sens
1t is that this construction would make the lec
this final in most without the right of further ~
But that would be strange. In Aztec Mining Co. PI
50 Fed Rep Z counsel asked the depart from M
meaning of Section Is of the Evarts Act above quoted on %
ground that Congress could not have intended to limit
of appeal to the extent required by that section if given An
effect read But the Circuit Court of Appeals said
ft true argued by counsel that if it be held that H.
has appellate jurisdiction this class cases M
larger part of pending in the territorial courts cannot
be appealed either the supreme of the United States
the circuit of appeal but in that respect the residents
of the territories only placed equal footing with The
citizens of the several states In the larger number cases
brought in the of the state the only appeal TO t m
preme of the and in the territory of New N
there supreme which appeal lies the same
the several states'
See also H. ISL e. S. 10; Folsom o. United States 1aO
s. 121.
There special for supposng that Congress intended
produce this very result here organized the courts and Dis
tbuted their jurisdiction in this territory has done in
other terrtorynamey, the lines of federal state es
in the several States 1t did not Alaska provide for only
District Courts of the United States which had jurisdiction over
local well ederal.cases and which would be regarded
the supreme of the Territory within the meaning Of
Section Is of the Evars Act (Stedmer COquidn United
States 1913 G. S. 346 did create only Territorial courts
of the kind usually provided for Territories which have us
dcon of federal well local cases. and from which therefore
appeals could be taken the Circuit Courts of Appeals in several
classes OF under Section 10 of the Evars Act But ere
aed both classes of with the jurisdiction of District
and Circuit Courts of the United States the other corresponding
to the courts of State and having done it naturally placed
the two classes of courts the footing appeals and
other proceedings the corresponding federal and State courts
elsewhere that is in the several States Indeed since the Dis
tc Court here has the jurisdiction such cases as NAV be
appealed from the Supreme Courts of other Territories under
Section 49, there would be in our Territorial courts
which would fall within the of that Section except few
cases. such the present admiralty which begun
before the Organic Act took effect and the Terri
toral courts under the provisions of Section of that Act
there were provision the Organic Act relating appeals
from courts here that appeals could be taken under
Section Is of the Evars Act from both the District Court and
the Supreme Court (see Steamer Coqttdm United States
s"a for each would be created by Congress in the
erce OF It's general powers territory belonging the
United States and each would be supreme court the
Territory with respect the classes cases of which had
jurisdiction Congress, however, provided Others 1t not
only organized the here on the lines of courts the
States but it provided in the clause Immediately preceding that
now IN question quoted above from Section sc of the Organic
Act that appeals from the District Court this Territory should
be had and allowed to the Circuit Court of Appeals the Ninth
Circuit IN the same appeals allowed from Circuit
Courts to Circuit Courts Appeals and then as believe
and might have been expected in the clause in question:
vded that appeals from the Supreme Court of this Territory
should be governed by the laws governing appeals from the S
preme Courts of the several States The fact that this Territory
IS so far removed from the mainland ample explain why
Congress intended to make the judgments of Supreme Court
final except in which federal question involved
and to permit such be taken up only they would be
taken up from state court that is BY writ of from the
Supreme Court of the United States That such the actual
intention there be doubt For instance the Judiciary
Committee of the Commission that drafted this bill, says with
reference to this clause:
by making the relations between the Territorial Courts OF
awa and the Federa courts to appeals removal OF ca
etc. the the corresponding relations the State
and Federal courts, all of local be tried ana
determined finally the islands, and thus the expense and d
lay OF bringing such the mainland and possibly Wash.
ngon distance of 5000 miles, will be avoided Report OIL
the Hawaiian Commission 1852 This is quoted by Mr. Knox
Chairman of the House Committee Territories in his repoI,
upon this BILL 20 How far such reports accompanying d"
may be considered in constituting it when it becomes statute ""
need not say. In this there consider them
Tor the statute plain enough in itself
The question whether this may be taken to the Supreme
Court OF the United States by writ of not before Us
in o1;ory he