Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1901-07-24

now dSkcu 10 REGARD tne ueclslOuS VI
the Attorney General as not serious"
Again, the court says in its opinion
In the Peacock case that if we had
been coded to the United States by
treaty of peace would the Constitution
extend to it forthwith ex proprla
vigore with the result that crime could
not be suppressed because there was no
provisions for a grand jury or for
unanimous verdict by petit juries and
questions of private right could not
be settled for the same reason that
there was no provision for unanimous
verdicts, and the rights OF the people,
however hostile to keep and bear arms
could not be irfringed, and trade with
other countries might be suspended
because there was no law extending the
United States shipping and customs
laws to the newly acquired Territory
and no machinery for the collection OF
duties under United states laws an,
vessels registered under the laws OF
the acquired territory would be with
out flag, 50 that. IN word. there
would be anarchy IL place Of order?"
Now let us see low this reasoning
has been upheld BY the authorities in
the United States. In the first place
less than a month after the decision in
the Peacock case the Hawaiian SUI
preme Court in an opinion by Judge
Frear, who also wrote the decision In
the Peacock case. held per syllabus.
The registry laws of Hawaii were not
| S,rogated Immediately upon the an
uexatlon OF these Islands to the United
States" and the court said. The Ha-
waiian registration laws are a part OF
the municipal legislation of these ISL
ands which was to remain in force tenn
porarily by the terms Of the Joint
Resolution of annexation"
On September IL, 1899, this decision
was reviewed by Hon. John w. Griggs
(22 Opinions OF Attorney General. ..
$40. ssh who said. the joint resolu-
tion Of Congress for the annexation Of
the Hawaiian Islands provides that
the municipal legislation of the ISL
ands - not inconsistent with
mine" and then said, with due re.
this Joint resolution shall
United States shall otherwise deter
remain in force until Congress of the
spect to the judgments of the Supreme
Court Of Hawaii. am unable to admit
that Hawaiian registry can now be
issued to a vessel and the flag OF Ha-
wall, "the usual token Of registration.
be flown by her" and BY the very
| language OF the resolution municipal
legislation inconsistent with the reso.
luton snail not remain in force. and
hold that the registration laws Of Ha.
wall have been abrogated as neces
sary consequence Of annexation"
What did the Supreme Court Of Ha.
wall say in regard to this last provision
Of the resolution Of annexation? In
the decision following the Peacock
case, Republic V. Edwards, IL Haw.
10, they said, in constituting the pro.
vision that The municipal legislation
of the Hawaiian Islands. not enacted
for the fulfillment Of the treaties SO ex.
tinguished and not inconsistent with
the Constitution Of the United States.
nor to any existing treaty of the United
States shall remain In force" etc, that
1t was only by inference that they could
hold that laws inconsistent with the
resolution or contrary to the Constitu.
tion or to any existing treaty, were
abrogated. and that to hold that the
sentence made such an inference was to
hold that II was intended to he, not.
as ii purports, an affirmative declara.
ton of what should continrS& but an
indirect repeal Of what was not de.
clared to continue. On general prin-
ciples such a construction should not
be favored" The reasoning Of the
court was that the Inference is one Of
repeal and that repeats by implication
are not favored" But the rule as stat
ed does not apply here for Congress II
1t did anything abrogated and anuul.
led such legislation and did not re.
peal" it. A statute can be repealed
only by the power which passed 1t, and
Congress in acting upon our laws did
not repeal any Of them but 1t die
abrogate and annul many of them. But
regardless Of this question the judg'
nant Of the local Supreme Court that
laws inconsistent with thvs JONI
Resolution and contrary to the Con
stitution of the United States" ant
"any existing treaty" remain in forc'
regardless of the provision Of the reso
luton, and that these provisions vert
"intended to be merely declaratory ant
not remedial" and therefore are of NJ
force or effect to abrogate inconsistent
: OF contrary laws in expressly and EN-
phatically repudiated by Attorney Gen
eral Griggs where he says that witt
all due respect to the judgments of thu
Supreme Court in Hawaii" by "th
very language of the resolution mum
. cipal legislation inconsistent with tn
resolution shall not remain In force.
(22 Opinions of the Attorney General
.. $50, 5SD.
And here it should be noted that tn
"very language of the resolution 4
the same speaking Of Legislation In
consistent" Herewith as 1t Is OF law
mot contrary to the Constitution" an
that 1t must follow that by the YER
language Of the resolution" laws con
trary to the Constitution" were abr0
gated.
The reasoning OF the Peacock cas-
I and other cases In which Chief Justic
: Frear wrote the opinion OF the court
. ha,ad MI n cinally uDnn what the cOlll