Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-08-22

Justices A. Perry, W. o. Smith and
]. 7. De Bolt, the two last pro tenn
pore. resumed the sitting of the SUI
preme Court punctually at l:l5 yester-
day afternoon. Judges Humphreys,
Gear and Robinson, Attorney General
Dole. Auditor Austin and Attorneys
Davis. DOuthitt, Dillon, Watson and
Andrade were present.
Judge Humphreys opened up his case
at once. beginning with a justification
OF his appearance in person. Though
having no ministerial function he was
clearly "a person interested" therefore
came within the category of those nav
| ing a right to take issue with the Au-
ditor. He stated his case by reading
his letter to the Auditor requesting
that s5OlO drawn against general court
expenses for the payment OF Dalllns
be credited to the Judiciary Depart
ment so as to be available for current
expenses thereof, the Auditors reply
denying the request and his appeal to
1.-THE Supreme Court. The cause involv-
ed the construction of Section of tho
Bailiff Act of 1901. He quoted from the
report of Chief Justice to the Legis-
llature recommending appropriations
land cited Bishop on Written Law as
authority for the principle that the in
Itention of legislature may be deduc-
ed from views expressed in its deliber-
atoms, the opinions of the person
drafting a law, etc.
It was the duty of the Chief Justice
to recommend appropriations for the
judiciary. and OF the Governor to sub
NIT estimates of requirements from
heads of departments to the Legisla-
ture. lie quoted United States deci-
sion that Congress had not the power
to prohibit the circulation through the
mails of infammatory publications be-
cause 1t would be an infringement OF
the constitutional liberty of the press
When the Chief Justice recommended
1886. 900 to be appropriated for expenses
OF the courts II could not have been In
his mind that the Circuit Court bailins
should be paid out of that fund as theiI
Office was not yet in existence wheT
his report was written. The Bailif Ac
specifically appropriated the salary o.
the Supreme Court bailiff, which wal
also appropriated in the salary appro
priation bill. The Organic Act created
the Office OF High Sheriff. yet th'
Legislature made appropriations fol
him under the Attorney Generals de
partment, though the Organic Act made
the High Sheriff Independent. Tit
specific appropriation of the salary o
] the Supreme Court bailiff did not pre-
clude the regarding of the Bailiff AC
as an appropriation measure. Will
regard to the objection that the sal
aries of bailiffs were made indefinite a
to time, the speaker presumed that tn,
Legislature considered the appropria
ton as being for two years.
1.-TWO years from when" asked Mr.
Smith, adding: The Bailifr Act wa
passed on April 20, 1901, while tn
term of appropriations in the genera
appropriation bills is from July |, 1901
to June 80, 1902
Judge Humphreys presumed tn
bailif appropriations were for tw
years from the passage of the act. II
remarked that he should be extremel
gratfied II questioned during the prog
ress of the argument. A habeas corpu
case was quoted by way of analog
where II was held that a person sen
fenced TO three years Imprisonment
where the law made the maximum pen
atty two years could not be release
under habeas corpus until the termina
ton OF the maximum period.
Reading the preamble of the Balm
Act he laid emphasis on the phras,
"and providing for the payment OF sue
compensation. A Federal and a Mis-
souri, case were cited to show that th
title and preamble of a law ought I
be considered since either of thel
might render the law demonstrations
Where the constitution itself paid a
tention to the titles of laws they wei
surely entitled to consideration.
was admitted that the English cour
rejected considering title and prean
Die, on the ground that these par
were written in by clerks. Chief Ju
tlce Marshall held that every part Of
statute should be considered and tn
where the intent of an act was pla
nothing was left to construction, b.
where there was doubt the title shou
have Its fair share of considerable
The authorities further laid down tn
where great Inconvenience woe inyol
ed strict construction of a statu
was to be avoided. This court shou
therefore take general cognI2ance
= the fact that the appropriation Z
expenses of the courts had been G
pended. The government was made