Hilo tribune., 1902-01-17

Act" spent as much time and labor
in their effort "to support, defend,
and bear true faith and allegiance
to the Constitution and laws of the
United States" as they have in
their effort to weaken, evade and
render nuggatory its plain pro-
visions, a ruling on the questions
here presented would not at this
late date be necessary by this or
any other tribunal i'll this Territory.
By the Act Of Annexation we
became a Federal Territory, not a
iural society, such as a State or
nation.
The position of the Territories,
i'll our system CT government, is
somewhat analogous to that of Col.
onial dependencies, though it finds
no exact parallel i'll past or even in
contemporary history. Territories
are not States Of the Union. They
do not possess full powers even OF
local government. They are sub
iject to the exclusive jurisdiction
and legislation Of the Congress of the
United States, although they are
practically entrusted with a consid-
cradle measure Of authority in re-
spect to the government of their
purely local affairs. The principal
officers are appointed by the Presi-
dent Of the United States and the
acts Of their Legislative assemblies
are liable to be over-ruled or an
nulled by the Federal legislature.
The principle that
as a Territory we could exer-
else any power not granted to us
by the terms Of the Newlands Res.
olution or could evade any of its
plain terms by judicial interpreta-
ton or otherwise, has always been
too apparent to require more than
a reference to our enumerated pow
ers under the Act Of Annexation.
When the sovereignty of Hawaii
passed absolutely and without re-
serve to the United States it was
forever and complete. There can
be but one unqualified national SOW
ereignty in relation to any of the
Powers. For, as all authority over
foreign relations and affairs is con-
fded to the national government,
it follows as a necessary conse-
quence that all such authority is
denied to the States or Territories.
The sovereignty
Of the United States resides in the
people, who exercise it through the
Constitution of the United States.
In Nanhorne's Lesse VS.. Dorrance,
? Dali, 3o4, it is held to be the
duty of the Court to examine into
the constitutional validity of every
statute brought fairly before them
as applicable to a pending contro-
versy; and if they find such statute
to be in contravention of the Con-
stitution they must pronounce it a
nullity and no law.
We are therefore brought to the
consideration of the section of the
Statute under which the defendant
was formerly convicted.
Prior to August IL, 1898, Sec.
6I6 Of Chapter 81 of our Penal
Laws was in force. The section
reads as follows:
The necessary bill of indictment
shall be duly prepared by a legal
prosecuting officer and be duly pre-
scented to the presiding Judge Of
the court before the arraignment Of
the accused, and such judge shall
after examination certify upon each
bill of indictment whether he finds
the same a true bill or not"
The crime for which the defen-
dant was tried and convicted was
an infamous one. He was tried
under the provisions OF Sec. GIG Of
the Hawaiian Penal Statute, not
withstanding the Constitution Of
the United States was in force and
effect here, and has been at every
moment of time since Aug. ~,
1898, The Fifth Amendment of
the Constitution Of the United
States reads as follows:
tNI..,x,, f.. a.