The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-01-24
JUDGE FREAR ON THE RACK.
Only Certain Provisions Of Constitu
ton Did Not Apply Here.

ton Did Not Apply Here.
In the Albany Law Journal of No
vember 3, 1900, appeared the follow
ing editorial paragraph commenting
upon the decision of the Hawaiian
Supreme Court in the Edwards case
which the Law journal published in
full from The Republican.
The Albany Law Journal is indebt-
ed to Circuit Judge Humphreys, Of the
Supreme Court of the Territory of Ha-
wall, for a copy of The Honolulu Re-
publican, containing the full text of
the decision of the Territorial SUI
preme Court in the Edwards case,
which IS, as it says, far-reaching and
sure to be commented upon through
out the length and breadth of the
United States. Judge Galbraith wrote
the opinion, and Judge Humphreys, NJ
the Circuit Court, sitting in place OF
Judge Perry, concurred. The opinion
in brief holds that the Constitution OF
the United States came to Hawaii
with the flag; that when the stars and
stripes were hoisted over the Islands
on August II, 1898, by the representa-
tives of this country, and Minister
Sewall read the proclamation pro-
claiming the sovereignty of the United
States over Hawaii. in accordance
with the Newlands resolution, the Con
stitution and laws of the United States
Immediately became effective over
dominion of the United States. The
decision is printed in null in another
portion Of this issue of the Albany
Law Journal
The publication of the above para
graph and the majority opinion of the
court seemed to serve as taunt to the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court OF
Hawaii for in the Albany Law Journal
of December Is. 1900. appears the fol-
lowing communication which speaks
for itself:
The constitution and the FLAG in Ha-
wall.
Editor Albany Law journal:
In your issue of the Sd inst you re-
fer to copy OF The Honolulu Repub
lican sent you By Circuit Judge Hum
phreys. containing the decision OF the
Supreme Court of Hawaii in the Ed
wards case, to the effect that the Con-
r&;s,,t:1r f01louod 40 0o. - ru.-o;;
Immediately upon annexation. and you
print in full from The Republican the
opinion of q majority of the court ami
q brief comment to the effect that the
Chief Justice. In his dissenting opin-
ion. held that neither the Constitution
of the United States nor that of Ha-
wall was In force in these Islands
from the date Of annexation to the es-
adjustment Of territorial government
These excerpts from Judge Hum
phreys' organ. The Honolulu Republi-
can. would naturally produce certain
erroneous impressions, which l would
like to correct
In the first place, the decision re
ferred to. although that OF the majority
OF the court in that particular case.
cannot be regarded as the view of the
Supreme Court of Hawaii In series
Of decisions rendered in 1898 and 1899.
that is. after annexation and before
the establishment OF the territorial
government, the Supreme Court unani-
mously took view opposite to that
taken by the majority of the court N
the Edwards case above referred 20.
and on the very day ON which the Ed
wards decision was rendered. the same
court. differently constituted Is to one
member. held, in the Marshall case.
in accordance with the line Of deeis-
ions Of the last two years and the dis
senting opinion in the Edwards case
and against the majority opinion n
that case. Under our lAu circuit
1ndee a n&nh4f r - nor - = -.