The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-10-17
did THE CONSTITUTION
FOLLOW THE FLAG HERE?

Federal court is invoked to annul the
sentence and terminate the imprisonment
imposed in a criminal case that was pros |
ecuted under the laws of the Republic OF
Hawaii. But one other Republic was ever
annexed to the United States, and that
was Texas search of the books fails
to disclose any decisions arising out OF
that annexation that bear directly upon
the present question. 1t must be recalled
that Texas was admitted into the Union
as a State possessed OF complete state
Constitution and statutes. One OF these
statutes which had been enacted by the
Texas Congress was assailed upon the
81 ound that it violated the provisions OF
section 10 of article / of the Constitution
Of the United States declaring that mo
State shall 80 pass any law
in.pairing the obligation of contracts But
the Supreme Court held, in the case OF
League VS.. DeYoung ct AL, IL How. 80.
that the restraints imposed by the Consu-
tuition of the United States upon the leg
islative 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 admit
ted as complete State and its Constitu-
ton and laws accepted as they stood at
the date of admission.
1.-The conditions differ in respect of Ha-
wall. BY the Newlands Resolution OF
y g..
that the Hawaiian Islands are hereby an
nexed as a part of the territory of the
United States and are subject to the SOW
ereign dominion thereof The right Is re-
served to Congress to provide for the
government of such islands, and WIN
certain limitations, the laws of the 'Ha-
waiian 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 to liberty by bringing up
the petitioner and the record on habeas
corpus. The statutory provisions peril
nc mt 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 habeas cor
pus.
''sec. 1872. The several Justices AMI
Judges of the said courts, within their re-
spective jurisdictions. shall have power
to grant writs of habeas corpus for the
purpose Of an inquiry into the cause of
the restraint Of liberty.
"Sec. 1853. The writ Of habeas corpus
shall In no case extend to a prisoner in
| jail, unless where he is in custody
! in violation of the Constitution or of a
law or treaty of the United States, etc.
HAS COURT JURISDICTION?
1.-The petition herein Is based upon the
claim that the petitioner was tried, con-
victed and sentenced to Imprisonment
with hard labor by the Courts of Hawaii,
| without a presentment or indictment by
a Grand jury and that the offence charg-
ed is an Infamous crime The character
of the pleading upon which the proceed
,ings were based, is not stated in the petit
| ton. 1t Is alleged that such trial and
sentence are in violation of the fifth
amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
| '"The question thus squarely presented
is: Has this court jurisdiction to inquire
into the cause of the restraint of liberty
}, of this petitioner?
Without recounting similar cases
wherein Circuit and District Courts of
the United States have heretofore assum-
ec Jurisdiction, come to the most recent
decision of the United States Supreme
Court on the question, and which is abb
solutely conclusive.
| THE case went up from North Dakota,
where the United States District Judge
upon the hearing, discharged the writ of
habeas corpus and remaDded the petition
er. (NIarkuson VS.. Boucher, us U. S. 1Si.
decided on November 90 1899 Justice
McKenna, speaking for the court said: IN
; the brief of appellants counsel, and also
in that of the Attorney General of the
State, as well as in oral argument, the
constitutional points raised were argued
at length. We are not disposed to con-
soer them. We have frequently pro-
nounced against the review by habeas cor
pus of the judgment of the State courts
in criminal cases, because some right I'M
der the Constitution of the United States
was alleged to have been denied the per-
son convicted, and have repeatedly decid-
q NV writ nj
error
after citing from Baker VS. Grice, 16s
u. 8. 2S4, follows: Instead of dis
charging they (the Federal courts) will
leave the prisoner to be dealt with by the
courts of the State; that after final de-
termination of the case by the State court
the Federal courts will even then general
ly leave the petitioner to his remedy by
writ of error from this court Justice Nc.
kenna adds: The jurisdiction is more
delicate, the reason against it's exercise
stronger, when a single Judge is invoked
to reverse the decision of the highest
court of State In which the constitu
tional rights of a prisoner could hav,
been claimed and may be were rightly de.
cioed. or If not rightly decided, could bt
reviewed and redressed by writ of error
from this court This decision, being tn,
latest expression of the Supreme Tribun
al, is binding on this court
1T Is clear that If the Supreme Cour
VI TIE OHlteu states mas jurisdiction Il
, correct the errors of the Supreme Court
OF the several States upon Constitutions
rulings. it has fortiori Jurisdiction t,
correct the errors Of the Territorial Su
preme Courts. In Shute VS.. Keyser IA
U. s. $50, it is held that an appeal O
, writ of error lies to the Supreme Cour
OF the United States from the Judgment
or DEGREES of the Supreme Courts of tn
territories except in cases where tn
a Judgments of the Circuit Courts of AID
peals are made.
1T Is further neld in Folsom vs. United
, states. 16O U. s. 121, that the Unite,
States Circuit Court Of Appeals has n
Jurisdiction Of writ of error to review
. the Judgment and proceedings of the Su
. preme Court of a Territory in the cas-
! of a conviction of an infamous crime. FL
, naliy the Organic Act of Hawaii place
the courts of the Territory upon the sam
4 basis as to the right of review upon an
: peal or writ or error as State COURTS
YOUNG LEWIS ARGUMENT.
Following Mr.. Baird, A B. Lewis.
! young lawyer, spoke along the same line
{ contending that the court was withou
Jurisdiction in the case. He quoted
long series of decisions and traced tn
history OF habeas corpus from before tn
tCivfl War to the present time