The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-02-25
HUMPHREYS IS SUSTAINED
LAWYER BITING GOES BACK TO
PRISON.
Judge Estee Rules That He is Not Be
ments on Territorial Conditions.


Judge Estee, of the United States
District court this morning sustained
the Circuit court in its sentence of At
torfney G. G.. Biting to imprisonment
for ten days for contempt in Oahu Pri-
son. The lawyer was promptly remand
ed to the custody of the High Sheriff.
In the first part of the opinion by the
court the history of the case was re-
cited at length. In conclusion the fol-
lowing observations were made:
1T is doubtless true that the eighth
amendment to the Constitution of the
United States is intended to protect the
citizens against excessive bail, excess
sive finues and cruel punishment; and
unusual punishment referred to in the
Constitution must mean such punish
ment as is unusual because of it's cruel
ty Of unusual because of the length of
the term of such imprisonment It
should be borne in mind that the condi-
tions in the Territory of Hawaii are
different from those prevailing in the
States. 1t is not yet nine months since
Congress passed the act for the govern
ment of this Territory and there has
hardly been time to provide all of the
most modern prison appliances and for
this reason alone it would be most ex-
traordnary for a United States Court
in this distant land to seek technical
reasons to impede the administration of
public Justice by hurrying to find a
constitutional cause for making a gen
eral jail delivery of all convicted mis-
demeanors, or to look for technical
grounds for overruling the judgments
of the Territorial courts in a hearing
on habeaS corpus. Indeed ii must be
made clearly appear to the court that
the liberty of the citizen is imperiled
before it will so act. And again there
n rsn Tn Of lf Tor itgp pf11
preme Court now in Honolulu to none
of whom has an application been made
for relief. The petitioner therefore is
not without his remedy if this Court
is In error. 1t was held by the Supreme
Court of the United States in Makuson
VS.. Boucher 1i5 U. S. 1874, that 1--WE have
frequently pronounced against the re-
view by Habeas Corpus of the Judg-
ments of State Courts in criminal cases
because some right under the Consti-
tuition of the United States was alleged
to have been denied the person con-
victed," that is what the Court Is ask
| ed to do in the proceedings at bar
| "It is admitted that the Territorial
| Court had jurisdiction to find petitioner
/ guilty of contempt but the petitioner
wants this Court to regulate the char
acter of his punishment. That Is petit
toner seeks for a different imprison-
ment from what other parties found
]
! fer. In the Marshall case decided Oc-
tober 23rd 1900 this Court held that
except in peculiarly urgent cases no
United States Circuit or District Court
will discharge a prisoner on Habeas
| Corpus after conviction Pepke VS. Gro
/ min 155 u. S. 100; In re Fredericks, 149
/ u. S. 20; Whittier VS.. Tomlinson 100
/ u. S. 231-242
1T was held in the case of Ex parte
4 Parks SO L. S. IS: that the Court would
( not consider whether the judgment was
| erroneous, because if the Court which
tried the case had jurisdiction and if
the judgment and proceedings were not
void the Court would not look into the
+ matter farther.
"The judgment in this proceeding was
| that the petitioner be imprisoned ten
days and it is the duty of that Court
/ to see it's judgments properly enforced.
/ This Court possesses no power to con-
! troll the judgments of that Court un-
less it clearly appears the constitutional
| rights of the citizens are being violated.
In point of fact this case does not seem
to be one where "cruel and unusual
punishment is imposed upon petition
er." In any event, the judgment of the
Territorial Circuit Court is presumed to
be right and what is stated in the Nit
timus must be taken as true See EX-
parte Terry 12S U. S. 2S9: This Court
can not afford a remedy up on the facts
presented by attempting to overrule
the Territorial Circuit Courts decision
in a proceeding on Habeas Corpus.
The case of in Re Fredericks 149 U
S. 70, so much relied upon by the attor-
neys for the petitioner is not relevant
for it does not appear that the Circuit
Court of the Territory of Hawaii in this
case exceeded it's jurisdiction. See alsC
In re Woods 140 u. S. 27S. In the last
above case the Court SAYS that "while
IL.
remedies for the enforcement of the
right to personal freedom = it should
be cautiously used by Federal Courts il
reference to State prisoners. The writ
of Habeas Corpus is not a proceeding
for the correction of errors" See alsC
149 u. S. IS and cases there cited.
But under the facts in this case thu
/, petitioner is not entitled to his dis
charge even if the Court took jurisdic
ton. 1t should be noted there is hard
ly a county in the States on the main
land where felons are not kept in tn
common Jail of the county until afte
their conviction or acquittal and thu
the felons must of necessity come il
contact with the other prisoners de
tained in the same prisons. But thi
is a matter for the local authorities O
this Territory and unless such autho
rites clearly disregard the constitu
tional rights of the citizen or unles
. lhefe appears TO be cause or Wanto
cruelty, this Court can not grant re
medy.
"It is not claimed that petitioner /
made to suffer any other or differen
punishment than the other misde
meanor prisoners held in this prison
He performs no labor on the streets O
elsewhere. He suffers no ignominy nc
common to all the prisoners. No oh
lection is made to the jurisdiction q
the Circuit Court.
: "In conclusion, the Court is compelle
y to believe that petitioners punishmer
|, is neither cruel nor unusual and there
n fore not in conflict with Article Eigf
of the United States"
PACIFIC HEIGHTS RAILWAY.
No grander scenic view to be ha
than Pacific Heights affords. Take II
! Pacific Heights Electric Railway an