The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-12-01

1$At ~ Lie INTERESTS ana development
of the West.
HAWAIIAN WATER Law.
Hawaii has a water law of its own.
differing greatly from that of either
the Eastern or the Western States. II
is the growth of a hundred years and
has developed out of the ancient native
water law. 1t is peculiarly adapted
to the unique local conditions and re-
quirements of Hawaii
me local Supreme Court is familiar
with the local law, the customs and
conditions out of which it has deyeI-
oped and the precedents which have
grown up in connection Herewith.
IL Is impossible for the judges of an
otner court, in different environment,
TO put themselves in the position to in
teiilgentiy decide case involving the
lntrlcacies OF the Hawaiian water law.
unless they first make themselves mas
tiers of such law.
1t would be denial OF Justice to
adJudge a water case which arose un-
der Hawaiians conditions and laws by
the water laws of Massachusetts, or of
California, which are as different from
Hawaiian law upon this subject as
they are from each other.
pnere is no probability that the
judges of the Supreme Court of the
United States would or could spare the
time to study the water law of Ha-
wall as it should beLstudied if an in
telligent decision is to be given. Ger
tainly nothing of the kind could be ex-
pected if the case were submitted on
briefs.
The argument concerning Hawaiian
water law applies to number of other
subjects
The Philippines. Porto Rico, and Ha-
wall, all have locaINconditions, Gus
toms and requirements which can be
and are understood and given due
weight by local courts, which cannot
be so treated by the Supreme Court at
Washington, unfamiliar, and with nei-
Their time nor opportunity to become
familiar with them. Any right of APP
peal to Washington concerning local
matters, must, therefore, impart an
element of uncertainty to all litigation
and rights resting on local law and
conditions, which must necessarily
foment litigation and tend to unsettle
values and securities.
NO HARDSHIP UNDER PRESENT
LAW.
4. The mere fact that no apeeal is
now allowed from the Supreme Court
of the Territory to the u S. Supreme
Court is no hardship on any one, and
presents no reason for change. No
general appeal lies to the u. S. Su-
preme Court from the Supreme Courts
of the 45 states of the Union.
Any case that can be carried I'D from
e
son of involving federal law. or for 9TH
er reason, can in ike manner be now
carried up from the Supreme Court of
Hawaii
1t is only cases involving local law
that cannot be reviewed in the U. s. SUI
preme Court under the existing state
laws as we'll as by the Hawaiian Or
ganic Act.
No one suggests that any hardship
or injustice is done the people of the
State of Oregon, because no appeal lies
from its Supreme Court decisions, nor
proposes to allow such an appeal.
There is no difference in principle be-
tween appeal from state and from
territorial court. What is justice in
one is justice in the other.
If Hawaii were today a state. no sug-
gestion would be made of providing for
an appeal from it's Supreme Court. If
justice is safe in the hands of the 40
State Supreme Courts, and would be
left with Hawaiian State Court. why
is it not safe with Territorial Su-
preme Court. composed of the same
class of men?
q LOCAL COURTS FOR LOCAL
CAUSES.
The principle of settling local causes
in local courts is as sound for terri
tories as for states.
The chief if not the only, reason
why appeals from the territorial SUI
preme courts on the mainland have
heretofore been allowed, was because
when the territories were created they
We're inha bited only by savages or a
new, unstable and floating popu-
lation, and had no established body of
law,
Such conditions do not apply to Ha-
wall. 1t had an established govern
ment and laws before California or
Oregon came into the Union.
Its Legislatures have enacted elab-
crate codes of civil and criminal law,
and its Supreme Court has sustained
a high reputation for integrity and
utility lOE tIlISt dlIOIlS, anu AAStS
evolved a well recognized system OF
law, represented by II Reports of De-
cisions.
PRESENT SYSTEM IS GOOD.
The present system was recommend
ed by a commission consisting of Sen
ators Cullom and Morgan, Represen-
tative Hit, Governor Dole and Chief
Justice of Hawaii Frear, after elabor-.
ate investigation on the ground, and
was adopted after exhaustive consid-
Grafton by committees, and discussion
on the floors of Congress.
The only excuse for change is that
the Hawaiian Supreme Court has
proven dishonest or incompetent. No
such charge has, or can be, made. It
should not be presumed that such
state of affairs will ever exist II 1t
does, it will then be time enough TO
consider the remedy.
That this is not the reason for the
is evidenced by the fact