The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-06-05

were misled by an erroneous dispatch from
Washington. The only departure from the
Constitution in the Hawaiian trial was
that the man was tried and convicted with
out indictment by a grand jury. The SUI
preme Court, by five to four, held that 1t
was a legal trial. because il was in ac-
cordance with the laws of Hawaii al
though contrary to the letter of the Con-
stitution. Chief Justice Fuller and Justice
Harlan were warm in their opposition to
the decision of the majority. They held
that the Constitution followed the flag and
that the doctrine of the majority placed
Congress above the Constitution. Justice
Harlan said:
dissent altogether from any such idea.
1t assumes the possession by Congress of
power quite as omnipotent as that pos
sessed by the English Parliament. IL as
sumes that Congress. which came into ex-
istence only by virtue of the Constitution,
may withhold the fundamental guarantees
OF life and liberty from peoples who nave
come under our complete jurisdiction, and
over whose country we have acquired the
authority 10 exercise sovereign dominion
In my judgment neither the life nor the
liberty nor the property OF any person
within territory or country over which
the United States is sovereign can be
taken, under the sanction of any civil tri-
bunal, by any form Of procedure ineon-
sistent with the Constitution of the United
II the accused had committed the crime
with which he is here charged In the Ter
ritory of Arizona; If he had been convicted
or murder in any court in that Territory,
except under presentment or indictment
OF grand jury, and by the unanimous
verdict of petit jury, and If he had been
then sentenced to be hanged and was
hanged. the Judge of that court would
have been guilty of judicial murder. OF
that the decisions Of this court leave no
room to doubt.
In my opinion the Constitution of the
United States became the supreme law of
Hawaii Immediately upon the approval OF
| the joint resolution of 1898, and without
any action upon the part of Congress.
From the moment that resolution became
law every human being in Hawaii. charged
| rightly insist that neither his life nor his
| liberty could be taken as punishment for
crime by any process or as the result OF
any mode of procedure that was inconsist-
ent with the Constitution OF the United
States.
| this case is chiefly remarkable for showing
| their adherence to convictions notwith-
| standing previous decisions by the court.
When the question whether the Constitu-
| ton followed the flag first arose the
| Journal took the affirmative side and main
tanned it vigorously, but when the Supreme
| Court held otherwise in the Porto Riean
| case the Journal yielded the point and &C
| cepted the decision of the court as final.
/ In that decision the court took it's cue
| from Congress and the people. and it must
| be admitted that If the other view was
accidentally right the position OF the court
! was wiser from a practical and Legislative
point of view. AS the court has taken that
position it should adhere to it, and the
dissenting opinions of four justices in the
| Hawaiian case are not entitled to consid-
Grafton at this late day. Cuban papers
have dwelt upon 1.-The momentous If not
revolutionary sweep of this decision" In
view of the fact that it simply af1rms
previous decisions without extending their
scope, there is nothing momentous or rev.
| dictionary about it. 1t simply means that
the power to govern all newly acquired
possessions rests with the people, through
their Congress, and the people can be
trusted.