The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-09-18
APPEALS FROM THE SUPREME COURT

1.-THE oficlal and Commercial Reeord-l
The law providing a. government for
the Territory of Hawaii contains a
UNIQUE provision, found in the organic
act of no other Territory, viz: the pro-
vision which makes the local Supreme
Court court of final decision. in all
Territorial matters.
This provision has evoked some con-
troversy both in Hawaii and in Con-
gress.
On the one hand, it is claimed that
it is a hardship upon the people Of Ha-
wall to be subject to the final decisions
of a local court: that they are likely
to suffer from the prejudices or the
| ignorance of a local court. and should
be protected therefrom by power Of
appeal to the Supreme Court at Wash
| ington.
| On the other hand it is contended
that the provision of law under discus
sion is a privilege especial granted to
the people of Hawaii as an evidence 81
the appreciation by Congress of the
high state of legal development and in
tegrity in the Territory, and as a pro-
lection against the great expense and
long delay of appeals to a court 5000
miles away.
Which view is correct2
This is a live question, for an agita-
ton is now going on to secure the
change of this provision of the law, and
provide for appeals from the Judgments
of the local Supreme Court, to the SUI
preme Court of the United States.
The question involves the life, liberty
and property of the people of Hawaii,
and it behooves them to individually
make up their minds as to what they
want. and use their influence to secure
the retention or the rejection of the
present system of local control.
The Record unqualifiedly supports
the present system.
1t is that prevailing in every one of
the States of the Union.
1t is in pursuance of the principle of
local control of local affairs, which
every territory is constantly struggling
for, and which, in respect of the courts,
Hawaii alone has achieved.
Those who so lightly talk about ap-
peals to Washington, as something to
be desired, do not know of the incon-
venience, the loss and the great expense
of carrying on appeal litigation.
The Supreme Court of the United
States is approximately two years be-
hind it's calendar. Only cases involving
public questions are advanced out of
order.
The prompt decision of case is fire.
quently as important as that it be de-
cided at all.
The delays in our own courts are bad
enough. If to these are to be added
those of the Federal Courts, the pow
ers of delay will be so multiplied as to
amount to denial of justice to the liti-
CANT who wants an early decision.
The expense of carrying a case to
Washington is liable to run into the
thousands. No lawyer can go from
here for less than $1,000. His bare ex-
pense would be $500: and only by the
closest connections can he make the
trip in thirty days. If a Washington
attorney is employed, the 1itigant is at
the disadvantage of depending upon q
man unfamiliar with the facts.
Hawaii suffered no Ill consequences
from a Supreme Court of final powers
under the Monarchy or the Republic,
why should it now?
The forty-five states of the Union
have final control of their local 1itiga-
ton. The proposition to release their
local control would not be tolerated for
a moment. Why should Hawaii at
tempt to reduce itself from an equality,
to the subject position of the other
territories
Promptness, economy and the prin-
ciple of local control of local affairs, III
favor the law as it stands.
To no one is the existing law more
important than to local business men.
In view of the fact that the Mitchell
Commission has recommended the
change, it would be well for local bust
ness organizations to memorabilia Con-
gress to make no amendment to this
portion of the Organic Act.
-&