The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-09-14
GOOD Law AND GOOD SENSE.

ctbly tfie fact that the Supreme Court
Of Hawaii has been and IS. as now
3 policy court Law and
equity have been absent in the rem
dering Of many Of the decisions OF that
court. The main question that seems
TO have o'ershadowed everything else
when the court had an important case
to decide was what is good policy
on this question" Whenever any
subject in which the government vas
8 party came up for adjudication the
question OF good policy has univer-
sally been answered in favor Of the
government Not IN the worst days
u English Jurisprudence when the
courts were declared to always decide
for the crown was there any court
so absolutely the plant tool Of the
government as the Supreme Court OF
Hawaii has been
Judge Estee scores the Supreme
Court Of Hawaii as strongly as ever
one court has been scored by another
OF course Il is done in the mildest pos
sible manner and in the choicest Ian
guage but the scoring is there never
theless. Says he, referring to the SUI
preme Courts decisions in playing
fast and loose with every question
brought before 1t:
The familiar rule of stare decisis does
not seem TO receive recognition by the
Supreme Court of the Territory. for that
court decides one way ar one time and an
other way at other times upon questions
/ Of the gravest importance and which cases
| involve identically the same principle.
The very uncertainty of that court 5
opinions tends to disturb and unsettle the
public mind as 10 the Constitution and its
application to the people of and conditions
| in this Territory. and is a strong induce
ment for this court TO exercise its dis
erection in taking jurisdiction Of this pro-
ceeding.
| Il is seldom in any review of the
actions of an inferior court that such
criticism as this is passed upon 1t :.
But that it is just all will agree.
The Supreme Court OF Hawaii in
order to continue the contract labor
system in Hawaii. after annexation,
held that certain parts of the Consti-
tuition did not extend to these Islands
In other words it held that some por-
tons OF the Constitution extended
here but that other parts did not as
though that instrument could be TAX
en- apart and segregated like a piece
Of machinery for a sugar mill. 1t
might as well have held that man
coming here from the Mainland
could bring his body and his right foot
but could leave his right leg down
to the foot and his left leg and foot
behind him and yet be here in all
his flesh. And the very men that
rendered this decision had themselves
sworn TO support the Constitution of
the United States. When they took
this oath did they only swear to sup
port and maintain such parts of
the Constitution as they declared
came to these Islands with annexa-
ton or did they swear to support
and maintain all the Constitution?
The entire series OF decisions by
the Supreme Court of Hawaii upon
Constitutional questions. with one ex-
ception. have been legal farce. They
have made football of the Constitu-
ton and of law. They have disgraced
the Territory and brought odium and
shame upon the court which rendered
such decisions.
Another point that is well brought
out In the Mangichi case. and which
The Republican has often called at
tention to. is the utter inability of
those connected with the Territorial
government to recognize that Hawaii
is not still sovereign nation. Some
have come TO know she is not but they
have not reached that point where
they can understand why this Terri
tory does not possess all the rights
Of a sovereign state. They do not
realize that there is vast difference
between State and Territory nor do
they seem capable OF being brought
TO the point of realizing the differ
snee. Following in the lines laid down
by his chief. Deputy Attorney Cen
sral Cathcart fell into this error OF
failing to note the difference between
a State and Territory citing author
tiles in his argument which had no
bearing upon the case as they REFER
ed to decisions affecting States in
stead of Territories. Judge Estee
particularly called attention to this.
saying:
This Is Federal question raised in
Territory ef the United States governed
y Federal law under the Constitution 81
the United States The authorities r..
seFred 20 hy the Depaty Attorney Gen
eral. sustaining his position against this
courts assuming jurisdiction IN this PRO
cesSisng are not in point Not one OF the
1eciSions cited relate to this class Of
ass. This Territory Is under the control
q Congress and IS nor IN independent
State with constitution and local stat