The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-06-07
NE rRurH OF TIE MATER.

The Advertiser in IT'S usual blunder-
ing and malicious way says that he
decision OF the Supreme Court OF Ha-
wall In the Edwards case is upset by
the decision Of the United States Sd
preme Court in the insular cases
This is not true as the Advertiser IL
self undoubtedly knows. In the De
Lima case the United States Supreme
Court expressly held:
From this resume OF the decisions
OF this Court, the instructions OF the
executive departments and the above
act Of Congress, il Is evident that,
from 1893, the date of Mr.. Gallinger's
letter. to this present time, there is
not a shred Of authority. except the
dictum in Fleming vs.. Page. for hold
ing that a district eeded to and in the
possession of the United States re-
mains for any purpose foreign COM
try.
Again in the same case the Court
held: The Territory thus acquired
(meaning Porto Rico) is acquired as
absolutely as II the annexation were
made. as in the case OF Texas and Ha-
wall. by act of Congress.
The Newlands resolution, under
which Hawaii was annexed to the
United States, contained the follow
ing proyiso:
The municipal legislation of the
Hawaiian Islands. not enacted for the
fulfllment OF the treaties so extin-
guished, and not inconsistent with this
joint resolution nor contrary to the
Constitution of the United States nor
to any existing treaty OF the United
States, shall remain in force until the
Congress Of the United States shall
otherwise determine"
The Supreme Court of the United
States held in the De Lima case that
the Constitution extended over Porto
Rico as soon as the treaty of peace
oeding that Island to the United
States had been ratified by the Senate
and Il also held, in the Crossman case.
that the Constitution extended over
Hawaii from and after the passage
and approval OF the Newlands resolu-
ton. and that the customs dues pai,.
by Crossman must be refunded
Justice Brown. who wrote the ma
jority opinion in the Downes case.
which held that the Foraker act was
constitutional, expressly declared,
that:
Whatever may be finally decided
by the American people as to the
status of these Islands and their In
hRbitants. il does not follow that in
the meantime. awaiting that decision,
the people are. in the matter OF per.
sonal rights unprotected by the prov
islons Of our constitution and subject
to the merely arbitrary control Of
Congress. Even If regarded as aliens
they are entitled under the principles
OF the Constitution TO be protected IN
life. liberty and property
That is right in point in sustainins
the opinion rendered by Judges Gal
braith and Humphreys in the Edwards
case. They held that under the prin
ciples Of the Constitution the people
OF Hawaii were to be protected in life
liberty and property. And they furtheI
held that the Newlands resolution
meant what II said wherein it declar
ed that only those municipal laws OF
Hawaii which were not in conflict
with the Constitution remained in
force. The laws providing for indict
ments by the Attorney General instead
OF by Grand Jury. and for verdict
OF nine jurymen instead Of by twelve
were in conflict with the Constitution
Of the United States. and Judges Gal
braith and Humphreys so held. And
now they are supported in that hold
ing by the highest tribunal in the
world. the United States Supreme
Court.