The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-11-18
EVIDENCE AGAINST 1T RULED
OUT.
Court Holds That the Duly Attested
Copy of the Act is Final Evidence
That il Passed.

The attack on the bailin act was
made this morning in the First Circuit
court, with Judge Humphreys presiding
and Judge Little with him on the
bench The challenge Of the panel or
the last Grand jury was denied, and II
was held by the court that neither the
journal OF the house nor that of the
senate could be introduced, as show
ing was made that there is properly
attested copy Of the act i'm question on
file with the secretary of the Territory,
and this was held to be better evidence
that it passed the legislature than
either journal,
Attorney Robertson made first the
point that the act had not properly
passed the Legislature because it was
not read three times. as required by the
Organic act. He declared that some or
the readings were merely by title, and
that this was not in compliance with
the Organic act. When he offered to
prove 1t, however he ran against legal
snag,a
Edgar Caypless, secretary of the SEN
ate was called to the stand and after a
few preliminary questions he was asked
to produce a copy of the journal. He
produced copy, and swore that 1t was
aorrect and Robertson offered 90 IN
troduce it in evidence but Deputy At
tOrneY General 1dlntdIl ODJetltus anu
the court sustained the objection.
Does the court care to hear any ar
gument on the point?" asked Robertson
The court did not. 1t remarked that
the matter had been settled by the Su-
preme court of the United States and
that days of argument would not
change the courts view or convince the
court that il had a right to oVerrule the
Supreme court at Washington. Robert
of n a n
on file was properly attested by the
officers of both houses and signed by
the Governor.
Secretary Meheula of the house was
next called, and his juornal was offer
ed i'm evidence for the same purpose
and with the same result. Exceptions
were noted in both cases.
The next point was under section llOS
of the civil laws. 1t provides that no
person shall be subject to criminal pro-
secution except in accordance with the
Hawaiian laws, and under this provl-
sion Robertson claimed for his client
the protection of Hawaiian statutes as
to methods of securing jurors.
Cathcart claimed that Congress had
done away with the Hawaiian jury
laws, by amendments that emaseulated
them. The court held the same way.
Incidently Robertson attacked the
one man to select jury has been abol-
ished and condemned everywhere ne
said. I'm almost every text book 1t Is
condemned and I should say that the
court ought only to take the position
that it is allowable as matter of last
resort If there is any power to pro-
ceed without it, the court should not act
under the condemned method
when we required Grand jury Ior
the first time in this court" said Judge
Humphreys in giving his decision, "the
court was much perplexed by the belief
that Congress had emasculated the
whole of the Hawaii jury laws, and that
therefore there was no way to draw a
Jury. Consultations were had with the
Chief Justice and with Judge Frear and
the opinion was unanimous that we
could not draw a jury under our old
statutes. Congress had provided that
we should draw a jury, and the question
was how to do it. A resort was had to
the common law powers of the court
The court held that the defendant s
contentious would leave the court with
out any power to draw jury at all.
The challenge was overruled and eXcep-
tions noted. The trial of w. X. Rath-
burn, in whose behalf the challenge was
made was set for the 9th.