The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-10-24
MARSHALL JAILED.
Continued from Page ID

william, william H. Marshall was defendant. he
SeIns charged with the offense of publish
ing libel in the first degree in Homo
Iuiu. Island Of Oahu. Hawaiian Islands.
vi OF about August 9th, 1899"
CHARACTER OF PLEADING.
The character of the plead,nq unon
Whlch ne was so charged is not set forth
~ uhe petition, but IL is alleged that he
was put upon his trial without a pre-
sentiment or indictment by Grand Jury.
contrary to the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United states., and
u at the offense charged is ian infamous
.Inne' mat upon the resulting trial
Nerulct was returned by nine members of
she jury, three jurors dissenting there
,lon' hnding the petitioner guilty of Ii
uei IN the first degree" which verdict IL
IL alleged lis contrary TO the sixth
amendment to the Constitution of the
United States" that on the 18th day of
Way 1900 Judgment was rendered upon
salu verdict and the said Circuit Court
sentenced the petitioner to Imprisonment
AZ hard labor for the term of six months:''
me petitioner taking the proper excep-
lions. The several steps followed in
taking the case to the Supreme Court of .
me territory OF Hawaii on appeal are
Iecited, concluding with the statement
That the said Supreme Court OF the. Ter
rtory OF Hawaii in said case on the gth 4
Gay OF October. A. ID. 1900. rendered it's 4
Iceclsion in said cause overruing said ex- I
captions and remanding the defendant TO /
prison"
LIBEL A MISDEMEANOR.
II is further set forth that the cause
or pretence of said Imprisonment is '.by |
virtue OF certain void and illegal proc |
ess issued out of the said Circuit Court
TO wit: a certain alleged mttimus
based upon said void and Illegal charge.
verdict and Judgment whereby the SAID
"a Is nr6a tn f1lxe
petitioner into custody and to cause the
said sentence and Judgment to be exc
lcuted."
The petition concludes with the usual
prayer for the writ of habeas corpus to
issue. a writ was issued. returnabIe to
this Court on October 18th, 1900. at 10
O'Clock a. m, at which time the body of
the petitioner was produced in court and
respondent filed his return to the writ
Briefly respondent justifies by showing
that the said William H. Marshall is
now and has been since the 9th day of
October. A. ID. 1900. detained and confined
In the Oahu Jail under aud by virtue of
the authority of certain mttimus to
the said High Sheriff directed" a copy
7 of which Is attached TO and made a part
, OF the said return.
| II was admitted on the argument by all
the counsel engaged therein both for pc
ltitioner and respondent that libel In the
hrst degree, the offe1se charged against
the petitioner, was a misdemeanor under
the penal statutes of the Territory of
, Hawaii. and that petitioner was not
charged or convicted of IAN Infamous
crime"
The petitioner bases his claim for his
discharge under the writ Of habeas cor
: pus applied for. upon the ground that he
. Twas tried, convicted and sentenced with
= tout a preseptment or Indictment by n
lGrand Jury; that he was found guilty by
a verdict OF nine out of a jury of twelve;
!, that the offense charged against him was
!, IAN infamous crime" and that the whole
, proceeding of the Territorial courts was
= in violation of and contrary to the rights
y secured to him by the Fifth and Sixth
. Amendments to the Copstitution of the
e limited States
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
i The question presented is: Can this
! Court. except In very rare and extreme
& cases, review on habeas corpus the YER
;. dict and judgment Of the highest Terri
l. torial Court Of Hawaii in crimma
- question wherein a constitutional ques
N ton Is claimed to be Involved. and over.
/. rule the action Of that Court?
a. From the date Of the passage of the Ju
l. dietary Act OF 1861. until now. the Su
81 preme Court of the United States Will,
20 always holding that a United States Dis
b, triCt or Circuit Court had the power il
4 extreme cases to summarily discharge
~ party from custody who is restrained o
L his liberty in violation of the Constitu
lAloH VI the 0nlitu STATES. Yet the sam
n. Court has uniformly held that except il
OF the most extreme cases the true cours
a for the petitioner was to sue out wri
OF error from the Supreme Court of tn
s. United States. and thus have the consti
O. nationality OF the conviction settled b
r. the only court in the land whose judp
OF ment on constitutional questions is fra
Dr. This rule was adopted because. althoug
s. the discretionary power existed. yet
ne Twas OF more than doubtful propriety fC
Judge to interfere with the judicial pro
ceGure of State or Territorial coul
WREN dealing with criminal cases.
IL was held in the case of New York v
I, Emo. 1856 U. S. 81. that:
Y BOUND BY PRECEDENT
While the United States Courts had Il
discretionary power to issue the writs
ar habeas corpus. and to summarily dispo!
he OF a party law and justice require
=, yet that discretion should be exercise
In the light Of the relations existing III
der our system of government betwet
~ the judicial tribunals of the Union ar
. Of the States: and in recognition of Il
~ fGct that the public good requires III
ID these relations be not disturbed by III
his rec essary conflicts between courts equa
~ bound TO guard and protect rights $
cured by the Constitution ~
INT arain: Where a Circuit Court erred
nd granting the prayer of the petition, q
= Supreme Court would reverse it's action
:. The Court holding in that case, "tn
ha the Judgment Is reversed with directo
TO u dismiss the writ OF haPeas corpus Al
20 remand the accused ~ the custody
H." the proper authorities"
be n must be admitted "a settled law IN
O." this Court like all subordinate Courts,
re- bound nv precedent. and peculiarly
arstwhere the question involved Is one OF co
md stftutfonal law. The Supreme Court
art the United States in the very recent ca
of Makuson VS.. Boucher, 10 I. ;. j
No seems - have decided the question
,eir Jurisdiction involved in this case peyo
90 dispute IL held as follows:
I'VE have frequently pronounc
against the review by habeas corpus
the judgments Of State courts In crimir
cases because some right under the 20
: stitution OF the United States was ai't
ed to have been denied by the person co
So victed and have repeatedly decided
proper remedy was by writ OF error.
ass We lately stated the rule SAID
Court. land the reasons for II In the ca'
rn- os BAKER VS. Grice. 1e9 L. s. IN. and III
Var lev vs.. Anderson, III u. s. 101-4-
The Court then proceeds TO quote