Hilo tribune., 1902-01-17


legally found against him by a
Grand Jury (if for an Infamous
offense) and duly presented to a
Court of competent jurisdiction
over both the person and the
.offense; and thereupon he has
pleaded and a lawful jury has been
lmpaneled and sworn to try the
cause and render a verdict. And
such proceeding is not "due pro-
cess" unless the same be in pur-
suance of a legal judgment by a
court of competent jurisdiction.
Dawson VS.. New Orleans, 90 U. S.
81. Millet VS.. The People, III
III. 2o4.
The decisions of Our Territorial
Supreme Court may be adopted but
do not bind this Court on any
question involving the construction
of the Federal Constitution or laws
of the United States. Common
wealth VS.. Mongahela Nav. Co.,
and Pa. 372. Meals Lessee VS..
Green Ist, McLain IS Fed. No.
1865.
l have not forgotten that a Sec
ton Of my oath of Office reads as
follows: And / do solemnly
swear that l will faithfully support
and defend the laws of the United
States, etc. That l will bear true
faith and allegiance to the same.
That l take this obligation freely
and without any mental reserva-
ton or purpose of evasion, etc."
The same oath was required to
be taken by all persons holding
public Office Aug. IL, 1898, and if
| were to sustain this Plea in Bar
or the demurrer interposed to the
Replication, i'll my view OF the law
| would be a proper subject for an
investigation by the Grand Jury
for a wilful violation of my oath of
Office, or by the Senate of the
United States for official malfeas-
ance.
"To support and defend the
Constitution of the United States"
surely meal that we should not
~flagrantly violate its plain provis-
ions. 1t seems to me to mean that
we are not permitted to 60 on a
tour of speculative mental explora-
ton for the purpose of destroying
the legal status of our own official
existence, with a deliberate inten-
ton to tear down or impair the
grandest political edifce extant.
The Annexation Treaty was made
and the ratification duly exchanged
by authority of Congress by virtue
OF the power given it by the Con-
stitution. Congress provided in
that Treaty that all laws, ETC., mot
inconsistent with the Constitution,
ETC." might remain in force until
it acted. The President directed a
continuance of the civil officers dur
ing his pleasure by virtue of his
constitutional power. We were
not s%ubjugated or conquered or &C
CURED as a result of military con-
quest. We deliberately entered
into a civil contract or act of ces-
sion with the United States whereby
for a valuable consideration we in
due form transferred our sover-
eighty absolutely and without re-
serve and duly ratified this Treaty
as required by law. And having
done so deliberately with a full
knowledge Of all that the pro-
ceeding meant and with a perfect
understanding Of all of its terms we
entered into the execution of this
contract under and by virtue of its
provisions on Aug. IL, 1898.
If the inhabitants of Florida and
the residents of other portions of
our national domain did not raise
the question as to their legal rights
it may have Leen a waiver OH their
part. a reference, however, to
contemporaneous history clearly
shows that the Florida cession was
entirely dissimilar to that of Ha-
wall. The rights they possessed
were whatever the terms of their
contract of purchase gave them.
No onvaal "a, a,,r ,Aat,na. ,E