The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-06-02
CONSTITUTION
AND THE FLAG
The Supreme Court Again Decides
That the Two Are Not
Inseparable.
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices
Harlan, Brewer and Peck
ham Dissent,
Justice Harlan Delivers a Forceful
Opinion Giving the Reasons
for His Position.

to four the supreme court has decided an
other important question involving the
application Of the federal constitution TO
our new possessions. The case gave an
opportunity for the expression of op1n-
ions by members Of the court as to
whether the constitution followed the flag.
It involved. the legality Of the conviction
of an alleged murderer in Hawaii, who had
not been indicted by a. grand jury, and
had been convicted by a 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 Constitutional Provision.
The constitution Of the United States
provides that there shall be indictment
by a grand jury and that the trial jury's
tverdict shall be unanimous; the law Of
Hawaii required no grand jury indictment
land permitted a majority of the trial jury
ITO convict. Congress in 1898 agreed to
1.-THE annexation Of the Hawaiian islands
sby Joint resolution which provided that
laws not contrary to the constitution of
ythe United States We're to remain In force
auntil congress otherwise determined: The
question presented to the supreme court
was whether the alleged murderer's con-
rviction by a majority Of jury while tda-
fwaiian laws still applied was contrary to
sthe American constitutional provision that
the jury's verdict must be unanimous
1.-THE court decided that under the clrcum-
1.-THE jury was legal. .G
The case was the most important de-
cided by the supreme court since the de-
tcisions in the Porto Rico and Philippine
case. The court stood exactly as then
with the exception that one of the five
justices, White, who agreed with the ma
Ejority in it's judgment. differed with It as
ITO the means by which the result was
preached, and Justices Holmes and Day
take the positions held by their predeces-
Ga Hva1y or1
The majority was composed Of Justices
Brown, White, McKenna, Holmes and
Day; those dissenting, Chief Justice Fuller
and Justice Harlan, Brewer and Peck
ham. Justice Brown, who delivered the
opinion Of the court, held that the muir
.derer involved in the case had been prop
serly convicted. He said in effect that
where the language Of the law was evil
IDENTIFY against the intention of congress it
should be construed literally, otherwise 1t
would result in freeing all the criminals
convicted under it, and this contingency
Fcould not have been foreseen when the
.Newlands resolution was adopted. The
books are full Of authorities to the effect
that the intention Of the law-makine
power will prevail even against the letter
aiof the statute. Anyhow, Justice Brown
said the terms of the resolution of con-
igress was intended to be merely temper.
airy and PROVISIONAL; that no change in the
government was contemplated, and tina,
Hawaii continued in existence. Even it.
name was not changed until 1900, wher
the Territory of Hawaii was organized
The Dissenting Opinions.
Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Har.
Ian delivered the dissenting opinions
With marked emphasis the chief justice
declared that by the concession by TIa
wall Of complete sovereignty to thu
United States recited in the resolution
OF annexation, the Hawaiian island.
passed under the provisions of the fedora
) constitution. It was almost criminal tt
tamper with the plain words Of this reso
luton, mot in conflict with the consti
tuition of the United States
The majority opinion. he maintained
was a usurpation by the court Of the law
making which was vested in congress
alone.
Justice Harlan, who delivered his opin
ion in a manner even more forcible am
dramatic than that of the chief justice
maintains that the view of the majorit.
was that congress at its discretion coul
have kept in force the municipal legisla
ton of the Hawaiian islands relating t.
criminal matters. altho such Legislation
may have been in direct conflict with tn
provisions OF the constitution of tn
United States.
Justice Harlan's Views.
II dissent altogether from any sue
view declared Justice Harlan. 'It as
sumes the possession by congress {
power quite as omnipotent as that pos
sessed by the English parliament If ,tt
principles now announced should becom
firmly established the time may not b
far distant when under the exactions {
trade and commerce and to crafty a
ambition to become the greatest polite;
power in all the earth the United State
will acquire territories in every directio
which are inhabited by human being
over which territories to be called 'de
tendencies we will exercise absolute d.
ninion and whose inhabitants will be ri
garded as subjects to be controlled
congress may see IT. not as the constit,
ton requires nor the people governe
may wish.
Wright Must 90 Back.
Washington. June 1.-THE United Stat