Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1901-09-12


lows:
mo person shall be held to answer
for a capital or otherwise Infamous
crime unless on a presentment or In
dictment of Grand jury" -
Too Plain for Doubt.
Even II this constitutional provision |
had never been construed. the Ian. |
guage is too plain for doubt.
II has been held by the Supreme |
Court of the United States that the |
Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the |
Constitution were not designed as
limits upon the State Governments I,
in reference to their own citizens. but |
are only restrictions upon the Federal
power. barron VS.. Baltimore, Z Pc
tiers 243: Thorington VS.. Montgomery,
147 U. s. 1901
The Hawaiian Islands were territory
Of the United States, subject to the
sovereignty thereof" and under the
control of Congress when the original
proceedings in this matter were heard
before the Circuit Court of the Terri
tory. Joint Resolution of Annexa.
tom.
Mr. Justice Bradley held In the case
Of the Mormon Church VS.. United
States, 1876 U. >. 4:
That the power of Congress over
the Territories cf the United States is
general and plenary arising from and
incidental to the right 10 acquire the
territory itself, and from the power
given by the Constitution to make all
needful rules and regulations respect.
ing the territory or other property be.
| longing to the United States.
1T would lie absurd to hold that the
United States had power to acquire
territory and no power to govern 1t
when acquired"
10 the same point let me add II was
recently decided In the case of Downes
VS.. Bidwell, 1871 u. s. 779, quoting
with approval from the decision Of
Chief Justice Marshall In Mccullough
vs.. Maryland, 4 Wheaton 316:
That the power over the Terrific.
ries IL vested in Congress without lin
itat,on and this power has been con.
sidered the foundation upon which the
Territorial Government rests"
As to Territorial authorities on
questions of the Territories being sub.
jcct to Federal provisions. see Brad
ford VS.. Teri. Ok. 800; Walker vs..
n. NJ. X. X. Co. Z n. Mex. 2S2.
In the exercise of the plenary power
conferred upon II, Congress provided
by the Joint Resolution of Annexation
that all municipal legislation of .he
Republic of Hawaii contrary to the
Constitution of the United States"
should he repealed, leaving in force
all that was not In conflict Herewith.
Intention Of Congress.
No language could be palmer. | am
constrained to hold that II was the In.
t,ntiOn Of Congress to extend the
Constitution save as limited by thu
other provisions of the Joint Resolu.
ton over these Islands, and any other
construction woulu be a straining ait.
e. that which does not appear In tn
language of the Acl.
As was said by the Supreme Court
OF the United States In the recent In.
sular case downs vs.. Bidwell. 1871
U. s. 1871:
When the Constitution has been
once formally extended by Congress
10 the Territories. neither Congress,
nor the Territorial Legislature can
enact laws inconsistent Herewith. And
II Congress cannot control the consti
tutional rights of citizens after they
have once been extended to them In
the Territories. how can the Terrific
ries themselves do this through their
courts or otherwise?
See Thomson rs. Utah 10 H. :
where the Cont. Mt mage 3.g saws.
Assuming that the provisions relat
. ing To trials for crimes and In crimi
, nal prosecu, ,ons annIy IN the Territ,
ries OF the United States. the mex,
inquiry Is, whether the jury referred
| 10 in the original Constitution and i,
I the Sixth Amendment thereto ia 4
. Jury constituted as II was at commo,
q law of twelve persons. neither mon,
q nor less. This question mus
z be answered I'm the Affirmative"
c Quoting approyingly from spripp
= vile VS.. Thomas, 1866 u. =, 7OI
Z where the Court saws:
:. "In our opinion the Seventh Amend
;, M. mt secured upanimity in finding
S ycruict. as an essential feature ,
!. trial by jury In common law cases
n and the Act of Congress- could no
= impart the power to change the cor
. stituti0nal rule and could not be treat
ed as attempting to do So
Ana again on page 800 tThompsoI
D. vs.. utah supra the Court says:
me Const. Ion OF the Unite'
states gave the accused at the TIM
the commission OF the onense.
e iight 10 ne tired by Jury OF twelv
l. persons, ana made u Impossible 4
;, uepr''e MN OF MS iberty except b.
the UNANIMOUS Nerhict OF such Jury.
= see ALSO webster w. Reld, IL HaH