The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-28


absurd conclusion"
Statutes expressly defining the jurIs-
diction Of certain courts" says the
United States Supreme Court in Rose
cram VS.. United States, 1853 T. s., PSI,
will not be controlled by mere impn
cations arising from subsequent stat
utes''
Apply these rules of construction TO
the act of 1891, and the act of 1899,
and can any other conclusion be logic
ally reached than that there is an ap-
peal 10 the Federal Courts from any
and all decisions of any Territorial
Supreme Court2
In recommending to the United
States attorney general certain reyi-
sions of the laws of Congress, Com
missioners Alex c. Botkin, David h.
Watson and William D. Byuum, under
date of November Is. 1900 tReport OF
United States Attorney General for
1900. page 403), say concerning section
as of our organic act, 1t is scarcely
-. be presumed that Congress meant
Is deny 70 Hawaii Territory a right
, that is enjoyed by all others
/ might rest the case upon the report
of the commissioners with the sugges-
ticn that if there is any doubt as to
the law. the Supreme Court of the
United States is entitled TO the benefit
of the doubt.
But 1 contend that under all known
rules for the construction of statutes
it must be held that the Supreme Court
of this Territory has the same and. no
greater powers than the Supreme
Courts of other Territories, and that II
is no more a final appellate tribunal
than IS the Supreme Court of Arizona,
or 81 New Mexico or of Oklahoma,
or than were the Supreme Courts Of
the many Territories which since the
/ formal ton OF our government have been
held in pupilage for years before be
| ing admitted to the Union of States.
| Of the forty-five States and three or
ganized Territories in this Union.
| thirteen were original colonies, and two
Texas and California-were admitted
as States without passing through Ter
| ritorial pupilage. OF the other thirty
| three that have been admitted as
! States, no single one of them duri =
It's condition of immaturity as a Terri
tory. was ever blessed or cursed as the
case may be, with a Supreme Court
! from whose decisions there was no APP
peal to the Federal Courts.
rs it probable, to quote the Ian
qua ge of the commissioners, that Con
gress meant to deny to Hawaii a right
that is enjoyed by all other Terrific
ries?" Is it probable that Congress
meant TO give to the Supreme Court
of Hawaii the same final appellate jul
risdiction that is possessed by the Su-
preme Courts of the sovereign States ,
! If Congress had meant to do this, sure
| ly il would have so declared in unmis-
| taxable language. and not concealed 1t
in the ambiguous phraseology of sec
ton Sc of the organic act.
In erecting a government for new
/ Territory inhabited by Hawaiians,
| Asiatics. Europeans and Americans,
(
archy or under a protracted successful
insurrection against a monarchy-in
| the application of the American consti-
( tuition. American laws, and American
! principles of judicature, to these
] strange conditions and alien peoples, It
! was certainly desirable to obtain the
services and best efforts of judges
! learned in the law, and who could not
be insenstbly influenced by personal or
local prejudices or interests Did Con
gress overlook or disregard these con
ditions? Is it probable that Congress
meant to exclude from the perform
/ ance of this delicate and important
I task the able and impartial jurists
/ who preside over our Federal Courts,
! and to commit it to such members of
the Hawaiian bar could be found
+ willing to accept places on the Terrt-
tdrial supreme bench? Is it proba bic
as the one Territory ef the United
states which since the formation of
our government might claim TO be
equipped with a Supreme Court from
whose decisions there should be no
appeal?
| intend no reflection upon the learn
ing and ability of the members of the
Supreme Court of this Territory when
/ say that it is in the nature of things
improbable that they should be found
possessed equally with the members
States. or of the Circuit Courts of APP
peal-witn such extended knowledge OF
law. such wide experience. and such
mental grasp and poise. as are neceS-
sary to properly and finally deal with
the complex problems that have beer
presented, and that will continue to b.
presented in the administration OF jus
tice in this Territory. No three rner
that ever lived in any Territory Of the
United States We're ever invested with
absolute power to finally decide ques-
lions that might involve millions Of
dollars worth of property, or the lives
or liberties. or personal rights of In
dividuals- No three men in Hawaii,
care not who they may be, ought [,
possess such power, and it is not prob
able chat Congress ever intended {,
; bestow such power upon them.
THOMAS FITCH.
: Honolulu. August 81, 1901