The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-08-29
FOR SIXTY YEARS.

FOR SlNI1 EARS,
with the main argument in a recent
brief upon the Jurisdiction OF the Sm-
preme Court the Star does not take is
sue. 1t may be a good argument or 1t
may not be a good argument but the
Star does take issue with a side effort
TO belittle the standing of the COM
munity by misrepresentation. Many
people come down to these Islands fill
ed with the idea that they never nave
had any law or semblance of law, and
that the bar and the judiciary of the
place know nothing of Jurisprudence.
1t is absurd to talk of erecting a gov
eminent" for the Territory. Such a
phrase means, if it means anything,
that this was a lawless place, which
had known no system of Jurisprudence,
and where everyone did what seemed
good in his own eyes. There has been
no such erecting. There has, how
ever, necessarily been modification to
assimilate the system of Jurisprudence
used here for the past sixty years to
the changed conditions which annexa-
ton brought about. That Congress re-
cognized this is plain from the organic
act. That act did not give the Terri
tory an entirely new code of laws, but
it wiped off the statute book certain
portions of our code, leaving the rest
for our obedience and guidance.
AS a fact, Hawaii has been under re-
cognized law, for sixty years, which
neither California, Utah nor Arizona
can claim. And Hawaiian law was
recognized by the great powers of the
world as amply sufficient, and as pro-
perly administered to take care of the
lives and property of their citizens. Ha-
wall has had no consular or extra terri
torial courts such as Japan has had.
The lives and liberties of the subjects
of the United states and of the great
powers were not entrusted to the juris-
diction of the Japanese judiciary till
two or three years ago. Hawaii for
more than half a century stood on q
higher plane in the estimate Of her jul
dietary and her judicial system than
Japan did.
Again what is meant by "protracted
successful instruction against a mo-
narchy?" The Republic of Hawaii was
recognized as a stable government, not
a government of insurrection, though
it was established through a revolution.
But so was the Republic of France, so
was the Republic of the United States,
and so was the Republic of Switzerland.
Are all these in a condition of "protract-
ed successful instruction against
monarchy If so switzerland's con-
dition of protraction has lasted some
thing like five hundred years, that of
the United States century and a quar-
ter, that of France three decades.
There is no use in belittling the Re-
public of Hawaii 1t was a recognized
government, it's ENJOYS were received
in the capitals of the world, its consuls
We're on equal footing with other con-
suls, and it's laws were considered good
enough for the citizens of the great
powers to hold their lives and liberties
under. That republic was formed for a
definite purpose. Annexation to the
United States was it's watch word. AS
far as the conditions of time and place
allowed that Republic was made to as
simulate towards the United States. 1t
effected it's object, annexation came,
and its work was done. 1t becomes i'll
of those who come to reap where others
have sown, who have swooped down
upon the harvest which has been grown
by other hands, and for the fruition of
which others have sweated, to talk of
erecting a government" where gov
eminent, law and order have ruled,
where the places they last came from
when the places they last came from
orderly frontier posts, that knew no
law.