The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-06-03
The Hawaiian Case.

The federal supreme court yesterday
decided, in the case Of a convicted crini-
nal in Hawaii. that this conviction was
legally accomplished thru a verdict of a
majority Of the trial jury without grand
jury Indictment, altho the federal consti-
tuition provides that there shall be indict-
ment by the grand jury and a unanimous
verdict on the part of the trial jury. The
man was convicted after congress agreed
to the annexation of Hawaii, and before
congress organized the territory of Hawaii
and while the laws Of Hawaii remained in
force pending action by congress.
In this case, altho Hawaii was outside
OF any connection with our treaty with
Spain whereby we acquired the Philip
pines and Porto Rico, the same question
which figured conspicuously in the 1nsular
cases decided in 1901 by the supreme
court, was involved in this, viz: whether
ythe constitution follows the flag? The
federal supreme court again declares, as
IT. did In 1901, that it does not necessarily
do so. The essence Of the former decisions
in the various cases was, practically, that
the newly-acquired possessions were sub
ject to congress and their citizens do not
necessarily become citizens Of the United
States, nor are they entitled to the i'm
munities and privileges Of citizens Of the
United States until congress shall have
conferred these immunities and privileges
upon them, but, meantime, the inhabit-
ants are entitled to be protected in life,
liberty and property, under the principles
Of the constitution Of the United States, as
heretofore applied to aliens. The civil
and political status Of the people Of the
acquired islands was left to be deter
mined by the congress Of the United
States In the former decisions the judg-
ments of affirmance presented by Justices
Gray, Brown and White were concurred
in by Justices Shiras and McKenna, and
yesterdays decision was reached by the
same vote, the new Justices Holmes and
Day, taking the same position on the ques-
ton that their predecessors, Gray and
Shiras, took. The dissenting opinions de-
livered by the chief justice and Justice
Harlan followed closely the line Of Their
arguments two years ago, the former
holding that the majority opinion was q
usurpation Of the law-making power yes.
ted In congress-. by the supreme court
Justice Brown. delivering the opinion Of
the court, held that the joint resolution
Z of congress for the annexation of the Ha
waiian Islands was intended to be TEN
porary and PROVISIONAL; no change in tn,
Hawaiian government was contemplated
and, until further legislation by congress
the republic of Hawaii continued In exist
ence. 5 -
The former decisions touching tn
powers Of congress and the extent Of tn
spreading quality Of the constitution, en-
gendered an immense amount Of partiza
froth and indignation, but the country es
tablished the supreme court for the pur
pose Of getting decisions on al lsuch dis
puted questions, and there Is no use kick
ing against a tribunal established by tn
n nation and people who object to the powe
of congress as defined, will have to wa
until the supreme court may reverse ii
own deliverance. which does not seer
likely, altho it has in the legal tender, tn
income tax, and some other cases. re
corded reversal of former judgments. TIL
decision of yesterday in the Hawaiian cas-
and the decisions in the insular cases
1901, ara among the laws Of the land an