The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-07-25


arrived at that the Hawaiian Islands
were a part 81 the United States on
tho 18th day q August. A d. 1895, |
that the FTsth and Sixth Amendments
20 the Constitution Of the United /
states we're in force here al that time
The transition period theory has.
however. been put 10 rest IN --innocu-
Gus desue;ude- By the Supreme Cour.
Of the United States IN the -Insular
cases. and al question as TO the Pea
cock case and cases decided upon the
reasoning therein being authority nov
in these Islands has been forecsosed
by that court. the decisions OF which
are the supreme Law Of the land. btn3-
Ing as well upon the Supreme Court
81 this Territory as upon this Corr
The Peacock case and the first Ee
wards cases we're decided by the 81
preme Court Of the Republic Of Hawaii
upon the theory that the case Of FIem-
Ing :. Page, 2 Hzw-. L. 8 500, in its
opinion by Chief Justice fancy he'll
that duties did no, accrue to the Uni
ted States In hsr newly acquired Terri
tories until provision vas made by Act
OF Congress FOR their collection and Tor
collection districts. and the further
theory that the subsequent case CT
Cross y Harrison. Is How. L. 5. l6t.
did not modify or override the case o.
Fleming T. Page. In fact. our Supreme
Court sought TO distinguish the later
case and 10 hold Il not applicable In
other words. our Supreme Court reiie-l
upon the authority OF Fleming V. Page
and repudiated the case OF Cross y
Harrison as mere dictum- The Su
IRENE Court Of the United States.
However. IN De Lima v Bidwell. in the
opinion OF the Court (21 Supreme
Court Reporter. pages 747-754l have
held the reverse to be true and have
decided that the case OF Fleming v.
Page on the point In question was
mere dictum and was practically ov-
erruled In Cross V. Harrison I'D p.
1922. II the case relied upon by our
Supreme Court tFleming Y. Psgel was
practically overnlled in Cross V. Har-
rison. and our Supreme Court refused
10 follow Cross y. Harrison, Of wha;
value now Is the reasoning" or the
conclusion OF our Supreme Court in
the Peacock case and the first Edwards
cases. The statement OF the case con-
tains tho answer. for IL follows as does
might the day that the Supreme Court
OF the Republic of Hawaii has BEEN
oyerruled in its reasoning and conclu-
sion based upon the authority of a
case which has been overruled by tae
Supreme Court OF the United States
In fact. the learned Attorney Gen
cral seems to concede by his argum ent
and in fact expressly conceded to this
Court. in answer TO a question by the
Court. that this Court should not ply
any attention TO the Peacock case
The Supreme Court of the United
States Court say. In the opinion of the
court in De Lima V. Bidwell I'D. p
78Sl. in speaking of the case OF Cross
v Harrison. supra, that after the rati
aoation nj tho treaty California he
came part of the United States" and
became instantly bound and priv
legged by the tariff laws of the United
States. The court further said that
To the objection that no collection
districts had been established in Cali
fornia and in apparent dissent from
the views OF the Chief Justice in Elem
ing y. Page. he added Up. 1876. l.. ed
90gl. II was urged that our revenue
laws covered only so much of the Ter
ritory OF the United States as hat
been divided into collection districts
and that out of them no authority hai
been given TO prevent the landing q
foreign goods or to charge duties upor
them. though such landing had bees
made within the territorial LIMITS oi
the United States. To this il may b,
successfully replied that collection dis
tricts and ports of entry are no more
than designated localities within anC
at which Congress had extended q lib
erty OF commerce in the United State:
and that so much of its territory a:
was not within any collection distric
must be considered as having beer
withheld from that liberty" The cour
further says that the court in Cross V
Harrison seemed 10 take an entirely
different view OF the facts connectes
with the admission OF those Territorie,
from what had been taken In Flemln,
y. Page" and that The doctrine tina
port ceded TO and occupied by N
does not lose its foreign character un
Ill Congress has acted and collector
is appointed was distinctly repudiatet
with the apparent acquiescence o
Chief Justice fancy. who wrote tn,
opinion in Fleming Y. Page and still re
manned the Chief Justice of tbs
Court" The Court then states thai
he practice and rulings of the Eek
ecative Department with respect Il
the status of newly acquired Terri
tories prior TO such status being set
tied by acts of Congress. is. with /,
single exception. strictly in line viii
the decision of this court in Cross V
Harrison. Is How. ls3. and then goel
fully into the rulings as to Louisians
Florida. Texas. California and Alaska
The court then states:
From this resume OF the decision
of this court. the instructions OF tn
Executive Departments. and the allow
acts OF Congress. Il is evident tina
from 1903. the date OF MIR. Gallafini
letter. 10 the present time. there Is 10
4 shred OF authority except the dfcfun
in Fleming =. Page practically over
ruled in Cross Y. Harrisonl for holdin.
that district ceded TO and in posses
sion Of the United States remains 10
any purposes a foreign country. Boil
.at