The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-28
THE STATUS
OF APPEAL
Does the Supreme
Court Rank as
a State?
HAWAII UNLIKE
OTHER TERRITORY
Argued in lwiIei Case That Su,
preme Court is Not One of
Last Resort.

The question as to the status Of the
Supreme Court of Hawaii promises to
be one of grave Importance as a re-
suit of the decisions in the habeas cor
pus cases and the income tax law 1t
| is contended by some OF the attorneys
that an appeal from the Hawaiian Su-
preme Court can be taken only to the
Supreme Court of the United States in
common law cases, while on the other
hand it is contended that the highest
court Of the Islands is below the United
States Court of Appeals in point of
jurisdiction. and appeals may be taken
to that court.
The attorneys in both the habeas
corpus cases and the income tax law
appear To be Of the opinion that for a
reversal of the decision OF the Supreme
Court of the Islands they can look only
to Washington Thomas Fitch in a
brief filed yesterday in the Iwilei case
takes the opposite stand. In his brief
he says:
| 1t is correctly stated by counsel for
| the defendant that their motion raises
! a question whether counsel fees for
procuring the dissolution of an injunc-
! ton are recoverable on an injunction
bond?''
| The Supreme Court of the Territory
! of Hawaii, in ID Haw., 3S4, has held
that counsel fees may be recovered In
I a proper case, while the Supreme Court
1 OF the United States, in Is Wallace,
| 211, has ruled such fees cannot be re-
covered in any case. Without further
discussion as to whether the case at
! bar is under the Hawaiian rule a prop
! er case for allowance of counsel fees, I
/ viii confine myself to enQuiring wheth-
/ er this court is required to follow the
! rule announced by the Supreme Court
of the United States
/ The answer to this query will involve
! a determination Of whether the Su-
preme Court of Hawaii Territory is In
any case ga court of last resort, for
this courT must take it's direction as to
/ the law from an ultimate and not from
an intermediate appellant tribunal.
( The act of Congress of March g. 1891
: CSec. 10, Q. 905, vol, 1, Supp. r. S. Z. 81
provides that the United States Circuit
( Court of Appeals-in cases in which its
{ judgments are not made final shall
, have the same appellate jurisdiction
TO review the judgments, orders and
DEGREES Of the Supreme Courts OF the
( Territories as it has to review the
( judgments orders and DEGREES OF the
! United States District Courts, and Cir
! cult Courts.
! Among the Judgments Of the United
! States Circuit Courts of Appeal that
.4r.a 4 10 f1EAF-..
/ upon a hearing in equity an injunction
shall be granted or continued etc.
/ (Sec. I. page 904, vol /, Supp r. 5. L.
, So
But it is claimed by counsel for de-
PENDANTS that the sections above cited
are imperative in Hawaii Territory be
cause section So of our organic act pro-
vides that The laws Of the United
States relating to appeals, writs OF err
ror. removal of causes and other mat
tiers and proceedings, as between the
courts of the United States. and the
courts OF the several States, shall gov
ern in such matters and proceedings as
between the courts of the United
States and the courts Of the Territory
of Hawaii"
Counsel for defendant assert that BY
virtue of section sc of the organic aci
the Supreme Court of Hawaii is made
to rank as the Supreme Court of {
State. and that no appeal lies from it:
decision TO a Federal Court, except up
on federal questions
Counsel overlook the rule which Il
terseIy stated in Board Of Com VS.
Etna Life Insurance Co., 80 Fed, Do
that all statutes in pari materia ar
to be read and construed together a
. if they formed part of the same stat
ute and were enacted at the sam
time"
The same rule is expressed by tn
Supreme Court of the United States 4
Frost VS. wenie, 1877 U. s.. 46. 'Wher
two statutes cover in whole or in par
| the same matter, and are not absolute
ly irreconcilable, the duty of the cour
mo purpose to repeal being clearly ex
pressed or indicated-is, if possible, I
give effect to both"
II was held in 143 u. s, 457, that 81
is within the power, Of courts to de
clare that a thing which is within tn
letter of the statute is nor within il
spirit or the intent of the makers
The safest rule of construction.
saws the court 'in Mass. L. and T G,
VS.. Hamilton. IS Fed R., $50, is to tax
the entire provisions OF the staturt
and thereby ascertain If possible wha
the Legislature Intended. The NEAR
ling must depend upon the content an
BE- ascertained from the occasion an
necessity VI NIr Law the IlASNAAt1 It
and the object and remedy in view.
The true intention of a legislatiy
act says the court in Rigney Y
Plaster. IS Fed, 6S6, should aIwa1
:, prevail over the liberal sense of II
. terms employed. A thing within II
intention of the Legislature In rrau
ing q statute is often as much with
the statute as If it were within II
letter"
"A statute says the court in z
i. VS.. Buchanan. 9 Fed, $50. lis to |
construed so as to carry out, wit
reason and discretion5 the intent of Il
o LEGISLATURE, though such construct,
q may seem contrary TO the letter of Il
! statute"
: In KnouIton VS.. None, rs Z. S.
: IL is said that "A construction whi,
will occasion great inconvenience
produce inequality and injustice is
be avoided If another more reasonah
interpretation is present in the sta
ute +"
An laws" says the court in Il Fe