Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-06-05
OUR POSSESSIONS.
Another Divided Opinion by the
Supreme Court.
Important Decision on a Case Arising
in Hawaii.
Bv Vote of 5 to Constitution Did
Not follow Flag.

Washington, June 4.-By vote of
to the Supreme court of the United
States has decided another important
question involving the application o!
the Federal Constitution to our new
possessions. The case gave the oppor-
tunity for the expression of some addi-
tional opinions by the members Of the
court as to whether athe Constitution
follows the flag. 1t involved the legal
ity of the conviction of an alleged
murderer in Hawaii who had not been
indicted by grand jury and had been
convicted by majority instead of all
the trial jury after that insular pos
session had been annexed to the United
States, but before it was formally
taken in as a territory.
The Constitution of the United States
provides that there shall be indictment
by grand jury and that the trial
iurys verdict shall be unanimous.
The law of Hawaii required no grand
jury indictment and permitted ma
jority of the trial jury to convict
Congress, in 1885, agreed TO the anneXa-
ton of the Hawaiian Islands by joint
resolution which provided that avs
not contrary to the Constitution If the
United States were to remain in force
until Congress otherwise determined.
The question presented to the ST.
preme court was whether the alleged
murderer's conviction by a majority
of a jury while Hawaiian laws still
applied was contrary to the American
Constitutional provision that the jury
verdict must be unanimous. The
court decided that under the Circum-
stances the conviction by majority Of
the jury was legal.
This was the most important case de-
cided by the Supreme court since the
decisions in the Porto Rico md Philip
pine cases. The court stood exactly az
then, with the exception that one O.
the five justices, White, who agreed
with the majority in it's Judgment
differed with it as to the means hy
which the result was reached, and Jus
tees Holmes and Day took the posi-
lions held by their predecessors, JUS
tees Gray and Shiras. The majority
was composed of Justices Brown
White. McKenna, Holmes and Day;
those dissenting We're Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Harlan, Brewer
and Peckham.
Osaki Mankichi, a Japanese, the de-
PENDANT in the murder case, was con-
victed of manslaughter by the Ha-
waiian jury. He applied for writ 81
habeas corpus on the ground that the
failure to indict him and his cOnvic-
ton by majority of the trial jury
were contrary to the Constitution OF
the United States, and that Consttu-
ton applied to Hawaii as an American
possession. The District, court Of tht
United States for the territory of Ha-
wall sustained this contention and Or
dered that Mankichi be discharged
from custody. An appeal was. takef
to the United States Supreme court
by the territorial government of Ia-
wall.
Justice Brown, who delivered tn
opinion of the court, held that Man
kichi had been properly convicted. Ht
said in effect, that where the language
of the law was evidently against the
intention of Congress, it should 5'
construed literally: otherwise it would
result in freeing all the criminals con-
yicted under it, and this contingency
the Newlands resolution was adopted
He added:
If the words of the Newlands rcsniu
ton, adopting the municipal iegisia
ton of Hawaii not contrary to the Con
stitution of the United States, be lit
orally applied, the petitioner IS en-
titled to his discharge, since that in
strument expressly requires that NJ
person shall be held to answer Tor
capital or otherwise Infamous GRIM
unless on presentment or indictmen
of a grand jury" and that lin al
criminal prosecutions the accused sha'
EMO the right to a speedy ana puoi
trial by an impartial jury Of the stat
and district wherein the crime shal
have been committed.
But there is another question under
lying this and all other rules for IN
INTERPRETATION of statutes, and that Is
What was the intention IF the lcgisla
tive body? Without going oack t. TN
famous case of the drawing of bloc
i'm the streets of Bologna, the books ar
full of authorities to the effect that tn
intention Of the law-makinS poWe
will prevail even against the letter o
the statute. OF, as ltISti! tNplNSS ~
Mr.. Justice Swaine: "A thing may b
within the letter of a statute and no
within its meaning. and within it
meaning, though not within its lette:
The intention of the lawmaker is tn
law"
Justice Brown cited many othe
opinions. among them that of Chic
Justice Fuller. that nothing is bette
settled than that statutes should re
ceive sensible construction, such q
will effectuate the legislative intention
and, if possible. so as to avoid an un
just or an absurd conclusion Con
tinuing, Justice Brown said:
There are many reasons which IN
duce us to hold that the act was no
intended to interfere with the eXistin
practice when such interference ~oul
result in imperilling the peace an
good order of the islands.
From the terms of this resolution it
evident that it was intended to b
merely temporary and provisional
that no change in the government wa
contemplated. and that until furthe
legislation, the Republic of Hawa
continued in existence Even it's nam
was not changed until 1900. when tn
TERRITORY of Hawaii was org lnize d