The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1900-10-16

the United States upon the legislative ,
powers of the several states could affect
them only after they became states of
the Union, under the provisions of the
Constitution, and had consented to be
bound by it: whereas, Texas was adj
mitted as a complete state and its con-
stitution and laws accepted as they
stood at the date of admission.
NEWLANDS RESOLUTION
The conditions differ in respect of
Hawaii BY the Newlands resolution
of July 4 1898 $50 Stat. L. 750) it is pro-
vided that the Hawaiian Islands 'are
hereby annexed as a part of the terri
tory of the United States and are sub
ject to the sovereign dominion thereof"
The right is reserved to Congress to
'provIces for the gvernment of such
! islapas and with certain limitations,
| the laws of the Hawaiian Islands
shall remain in force until the
Congress of the United States shall
otherwise determine" Hence the laws
of the Territory of Hawaii as enacted
by the late Republic are not free of the
supervisory control of the Supreme
Court of the United States, as were the
| laws of Texas. Complete redress may
be obtained in that supreme tribunal.
But in this proceeding, it is sought
to shorten the way of liberty by bring
! ing up the petitioner and the record on
habeas corpus. The statutory provis-
ions of the United States pertinent for
| the present are as follows:
! Section ISL. That the supreme court
and the circuit and district courts shall
have power to issue writs of habea%
corpus.
Section 752. The several Justices and
Judges of the said courts, within their
respective jurisdictions, shall have pow
er to grant writs of habeas corpus for
the purpose of an inquiry into the cause
of the restraint of liberty.
Section 1853 The writ of habeas cor
pus shall in no case extend to pris-
oner in Jail, unless where he is in GUS
tody in violation of the Con-
stitution or of a law or treaty of the
United States, etc.
A SHORT CUT.
The petition herein is based upon the
claim that the petitioner was tried,
convicted and sentenced to imprison-
ment with hard labor by the Courts of
Hawaii, without a presentment or in
dictment by grand jury" and that
the offence charged "is an infamous
crime" The character of the plead
ing upon which the proceedings were
based, is not stated in the petition. 1t
is alleged that such trial and sentence
are in violation of the Fifth Amend
ment to the Constitution of the United
States.
The question thus squarely presented
is: Has this court jurisdicti6n to in
quire into the cause of the r. 'raint of
liberty of this petitioner? E
Without recounting similsf ases
wherein Circuit and District n ur' OF
the United States have herstJo as
sufned jurisdiction, l come to the most
recent decision of the United States
Supreme Court on the question, and
which is absolutely conclusive.
The case went up from North Dakota
where the United States District Judge
upon the hearing discharged the writ
of habeas corpus and renanded the pc
titioner. (Markuson " Boucher, 175 U
S. 1884, decided on Nov. 20, 1897
LATEST DECISION.
, Justice McKenna, speaking for the
: court, said: I'm the brief of appellants
counsel, and also in that of the attor'
ney general of the state, as we'll as il
oral argument, the constitutional point:
raised were argued at length. We arr
not disposed to consider them. We have
frequently pronounced against the re-
view by habeas corpus of the judgmen
of the state courts in criminal cases
because some right under the Constitu
ton of the United States was alleged
to have been denied the person convict
ed and have repeatedly decided the
proper remedy was by writ of error"
After citing from Baker v. Grice, 16
u S. 284, as follows: Instead of o.
discharging they( the Federal courts,
will leave the prisoner to be dealt witt
) by the courts of the state; that after {
final determination of the case by th'
state court, the Federal courts will ever
i then generally leave the petitioner L
, his remedy by writ Of error from thi
t court" Justice McKenna adds: Th
Jurisdiction is more delicate. the reason
against it's exercise stronger, when
single Judge is invoked to reverse tn
,, decision of the highest court of stat
; in which the constitutional rights OF
prisoner could have been claimed ant
! may be were rightly decided, or If no
= rightly decided, could be reviewed am
redressed by a writ of error from thl
! court"
! This decision, being the latest expires
: sion of the supreme tribunal is binding
! on this court.
/ THE DURRANT CASE.
t In re Boardman (Durrant Case) 1e
s IU. s. SO, it was said that writ of ha
e beas corpus must be denied II 1t Is ap
e parent that the only result of it's issu
e would be the remanding of the prisone
e to custody.
s It is clear that If the Supreme CouI
: of the United States has jurisdictio
g to correct the errors of the severe
y states, upon Constitutional rulings
f has fortiori jurisdiction to correct tn
t errors of the Territorial Suprem
e Courts.
e. In Shute V. Keyser, 149 u. S. $50, it
of held that an appeal or writ of error li'
: to the Supreme Court of the Unite
States from the judgments or decree
of the Supreme Courts Of the Territori'
except in cases where the judgments
i ~ a Isa q re aN