The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1905, 1901-02-28
There Is No Appeal.

appeals lie in such cases, and that |
only cases in which Federal ques-
tions are involved can be taken by
writ OF error to the Supreme Court
OF the United States. In other
words, that the Territorial courts OF
Hawaii are on the same footing as
the courts OF the several States, ard
not on that Of the courts OF other
Territories:
The commission to revise and
codify the criminal and penal laws
of the Unite States, appears 10
have come to the same conclusion,
but thought that it was through an
oversight, The following CORES
pondence between Chief Justice
Ffear, Of the Hawaiian Supreme
Court, end Chairman Botkin, of the
Revision Commission, shows that
they now consider this to have been
TIE intention Of Congress. Mr..
Freat's letter, dated February /,
directed to Attorney G sneral Griggs,
was as follows:
"The commission to revise and
codify the criminal and penal laws
OF the United States, 10 their report
set forth in your report TO Congress
for the year 1900, at page 403, quote
certain provisions OF the Act to pro.
vide a government for the Territory
OF Hawaii, and express belief that
an omission was Internationally
made of any provision for appeals
from the United States District
Court for Hawaii to the Supreme
Court OF the United States, and in
this think they are entirely
correct.
"But they further say, Neither is
it certain that the language of the
sentence last quoted confers any
right Of appeal from the Supreme
Court of Hawaii to the Circuit
Court Of Appeals, or to the Supreme
Court of ths United States, and the
act contains no other provision on
the subject; yet it is scarcely to be
presumed that Congress meant to
deny to that Territory right that
is enjoyed by all Others In this
l respectfully suggest whether they
were not under a misapprehension.
| believe the intention was that
cases ia which Federal questions are
involved might be taken to the
Supreme Court of the United States
by writ Of error, as from the high
est courts OF the several States, but
that all cases of a local nature
should bs finally settled here. And
it seems to me that the language OF
the Act is capable OF such coustruc-
ton, To have the latter class of
cases finally decided here is deemed
, a privilege, and not the denial Of a
right-as represented in the report
Of the commission above referred to.
When the Hawaiian Commission
was in session in Honolulu, such
was the expressed desire of the bar
and the business community In
the report Of the Hawaiian Com
mission, at page 1852, is found this
, language by the subcommittee on
, judiciary: BY making the relations
, between the Territorial courts OF
Hawaii and the Federal courts as to
appeals, removal of causes, etc, the
same as the corresponding relations
between the State and Federal
courts, all cases of local nature
can be tried and determined finally
in the Islands, and thus the expense
and delay OF bringing such cases to
r the Mainland, and possibly to Wash
4 ingtop,s distance OF 5000 miles, will
1 be avoided. This was quoted by Mr.
t Knox, chairman of the House Com
J. mittee on Territories, in his report
i upon the Hawaiian bill to the
r House, on page 20. l inclose copy
o OF recent decision by our Supreme
o Court upon this subject. Very
= respectfully,
8 "W. T. FBEAR,
}, "Chief Justice Supreme Court, Ter
d ritory OF Hawaii"