The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-13

tn be considered said Mr.. Davis
"frst, is there an appeal? Second, If
the Territory has a right of appeal how
shall it be taken? Third, were these
convictions void? There is only one
way by which an appeal can come up,
upon writ of error. An appeal is
civil-law process, and the court must
first answer the question, is there a
right of appeal unless specially speci-
fed by law"
In the afternoon Mr.. Davis resumed, /
quoting extensively from previous deci-
sions to show that no appeal could lie |
in the case at bar and then again go
ing into the question of the legality of |
the convictions, arguing that they were |
void and illegal He said it was a |
question of whether the Constitution |
followed the flag; if this Territory was
not foreign, then it was domestic; it |!
could not be both foreign and domestic |
1T is an open question: said he. The |
courts are reluctant to open the doors |
of prison; God forbid if l was on the
bench, that l should open the prison
doors unless there be a fragrant viola
! ton of the law, and the indictments
were absolutely void. This is the case
here; these men have never been placed
| in jeopardy" We have the
blessings and benefits of the Constitu-
| ton, and when we were annexed swore
| to support it. There is but one conclu-
sion in cases decided by the Supreme
Court-this country is domestic and not
foreign. If we cannot collect duties in
/ Hawaii, less can we have trial by
| less than unanimous jury and indict-
ment by grand jury.
| THE Appellate Court has the power
to issue writs of habeas corpus
| > II deny absolutely and empha ticaily
the proposition of the Attorney Gener-
al that States could try cases without
jury or grand jury. These prisoners
are being restrained of their liberty in
contravention of the Constitution of
the United States and.o the Organic
Act. The general appeal is wrong in
this case; it is not our fault that the
law is wrong. Why did not the Attor-
ney General have the Legislature RENE
dy this and give the right of appeal in
habeas corpus cases? I submit that
there was no right of appeal in this
case; this court won't legislate for the
Attorney General, but will decide upon
the law as it now appears"
MIR. BROOKS TALKS.
Mr.. Brooks followed briefly answer
ing the short argument made by Depu-
ty Attorney General Cathcart in the
morning, relative to the right of appeal.
He said that there were only these
questions to be considered: First,
whether we have statute allowing an
lappeal4 Second, whether the law is 81
llent in the matter, and if so, does the
general law of the United States gov
ern? He quoted section 14S4 which, he
argued expressly forbids the right to
appeal in habeas corpus cases. and that
: the appeal is from the issuance of the
writ an6fs not from the order of the
court allowing the writ.
Mr. Dole replied saying that the stat
. ute expressly provided that the action
of the circuit judge in chambers is sub
ject to appeal Concluding he said We
hemently, Law is a farce. and justice
, a travesty, if the circuit court is higher
: than the Supreme Court, and a judge
, can turn these criminals and every 9TH
er like them loose in a community
would be false to my trust if I did not
: do all in my power to prevent five or
six men whose hands are red with
blood, two or three rapists, and thieves
and burglars, twenty three in all, from
being freed, and the proceedings of the
last two years nullified. If this is done
. the Attorney Generals Department
must gather up the scattered threads
of evidence. and present the cases
: again. If the constitutionality of the
: law is not passed upon at this time. and
: these men are re-convicted, and the
= Supreme Court should then hold that
the first conviction was legal the men
, could be released because they had
{ twice been placed in jeopardy
/ THE PAHIA CASE
: The Supreme Court then began the