The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1900-11-02
CONSTITUTIONAL IIu
AND EXPANSION POLICY
lcou,inu.-i from sixth P.re-I

Diet Il an essential feature OF rrizl By
jury IN COMMON Law cases. and the act
of conSress could 10; iulpzrr the power to
change the constitutional rule and could
pot b treated as attempting to d So
The chief justice sIso declared:
1T has been decided By the court that
The Territorial Act OF March, 1882. per
hitting this IL =. judgments 10 be en-
tered on yeryiiets returned by less than
the whole number Of jurors was invalid
b.sau in euntrayentiou OF the Seventh
Amendment OF the Constitution and the
act Of congress
In the passage last quoted be referred
10 the case Of American Publishing Com
pany - Fisher ti66 L. S, 46i. 1878.
in which the court, per Mr.. Justice
Brewer. held.
Either the Seventh Amendment 10 the
Constitution or these acts OF congress. or
al together. secured 10 every Iitigant in
common law action in the courts of the
Territory of Utah the right TO a trial by
jury. and nuIlifed any act of its legisla-
ture which attempted TO take from him
anything which is of the substance of that
right"
In the case Of Thompson vs.. Utah the
court declared:
That the provisions of the Consritu-
zion Of the United States relating to the
right Of trial by jury in suits at common
law apply to the territories of the United
States is no longer an open question
1t Is equally beyond question that the
provisions of the national Constitution
relating to trials by jury for crimes and
10 criminal prosecution apply to the ter
ritorieS OF the United States" (110 L.
:. 343. See also TO same effect 49, L.
:. t04 40 L. s. SIS; leo L. s. 264:
los L. s. 151; 116 L. S. 4S4)
In Callan VS.. Wilson. which was a
criminal prosecution by information in
Ihe police court of the District of Column
bia. the accused claimed that the right
of trial by jury was secured to him by the
Third article of the Constitution. as well
rs by lie Fifth and Sixth amendments.
The court held that the article and
amendments of the Constitution referred
to applied to the District OF Columbia.
saying in part:
There is morning in the history OF the
Constitution or of the original amend
ments to justify the assertion that the
people of the District may ne lawfully de-
prived of the benefit of any of the consti-
tutional guarantees of life. liberty and
property. We cannot think
that the people of this District have in
that regard less rights than those ac-
corded to the people of the territories OF
the United States" (127 L. S. $40: and
see TO same effect Ia L. s. p. -
1t is submitted that the force of the
above decisions establish .ng that the linn
itations of the Constitution apply to the
Territories is not affected by the vague
expression contained in the opinion of
Mr.. Justice Bradley. in the case of the
Mormon Church VS.. the United States
(136 L. s, 44), as follows:
Doubtless congress in legislating for
til" territories would be subject to those
limitations in favor of per
Constitution and its amendments. but
these limitations would exist rather by
inference and the general spirit of the
Constitution. from which congress derives
all its powers than by any express aud
direct application of its provisions.
In his dissenting opinion in that case
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller said:
In my opinion congress is restrained
not merely by the limitations expressed
in the Constitution. but also by the ab-
sence of any grant of power, express or
implied. in that instrument
regard it as of vital consequence that alb
Solute power should never be conceded
as belonging under our system of govern
ment TO any, one of its departments. The
legislative power of congress is delegated.
not inherent. and is therefore limited
That the Constitution is supreme over
the federal government in all its branches
and in all its operations and relations is
also apparent from these decisions. in
which the supreme court has repeatedly
held that whatever may have been the
force of the ordinance of 1877. when it
was enacted. its authority and effect
ceased and yielded TO the paramount au-
thority of thesConstitution from the time
that the latter was adopted. Such is the
principle laid down in the cases of Poi
lard'S Lessee vs.. Hagan (3 Howard
212l. Parmoli vs.. First Municipality of
New Orleans Is Howard, 5S9). Strader
rs. Graham &c Howard. So. Scott vs.
Sanford 90 Howard. 1901 and Others.