The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-27

clauses relating to the grand and petty
Juries in the fifth ana sixth amend
ments to the constitution of the Unit
ed States were applicable IN these Is :
ands during the period between the
annexation of these Islands TO the
United States, and the establishment
of Territorial government here. This
! is not a new question before this
court.
Those decisions. like our own in line
cases referred 10, were someyg hat
lengthy. and it is unnecessary TO refer
to or quote from them or from our
own former opinions extensively. /.
VIII be sufficient to refer 10 them
/ briefly in respect Ia the three prime pal
questions involved. IL DID the coz
stitution extend in all its fullness of it's
own force to these Islands immediatel,
upon annexation; CD did the particular
clauses relating to juries extend mere
of their own force "a that time, and
80 did the constitution of these par
ticular provisions become applicable
here art that time by force of the ian
guage used in the joint resolution of
annexation, even if they did not then
become applicable here of their own
force? Let us consider these ques-
tions in their order.
After reviewing the action of the
IHIleu SldleS supreme court on iIidl
question the court holds:
From this it would seem to follow
| that the provision in the joint resoIu-
ton anneXing the Hawaiian Islands to
the United States, that, Until legis-
lation shall be enacted extending the
United States customs laws and regu-
lations to the Hawaiian Islands the
existing customs relations of the Ha-
Islands he.
and ether countries shall remain I'M
changed" was, as held in the Peacock
case, a valid exercise of power by
Congress, Notwithstanding the conSti-
tutional provision in question; in other
words, as held in that case, that duties
; could be collected here at Hawaiian
rates on goods imported into these
i Islands from the United States ana
foreign countries during the period in
question, although they could not law
fully be collected under the Dingley
Act on goods imported into the United
States from these Islands. the lnsu-
lar cases, therefore, appear to sustain
both our conclusion and our reasoning
in the Peacock case. They sustain the
view that the constitution did not In
all it's fullness ex proprio vigore fol-
low the flag to these Islands.
Thus while the decisions in the in
sular cases related directly 10 other
provisions of the constitution. yet the
opinions of the majority of the justices
seem to support our previous views in
regard to the provisions now in ques-
ton, not only by inference from their
reasons and conclusions upon the pro-
vision then under consideration, but
to some. extent also by express an
guage bearing upon the questions now
under consideration.
The reasoning OF the court is given.
in referring to the first Edwards case.
follows:
s. Were the constitutional provi-
sions relating to grand and petty ju-
ries put in force here by Congress,
either by extending the constitution
here or by Incorporating these Islands
as an integral part of the United
States, by the joint resolution of an
nexation, even though those provisions
would not then have become applica-
BILE here ex proprio vigore? This Is
perhaps the question of greatest diff
Guilty It is a question of the cor
struction of the joint resolution OF an
neXation.
In conclusion the court says:
We said in the first Edwards case
that the argument was that, on the
principle of eXpressio unius. exclusio
aiterius, the expression of an intention
to continue in force those Hawaiian
laws which were not inconsistent with
the constitution of the United States
implied an intention to discontinue
those which were Inconsistent with the
constitution, and we reasoned that the
language used was not In the direct
form usually employed by Congress TO