Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-10-06
ATTORNEY MACON DISCUSSES
CONTINUED from Page 81

sion which inniCts hard labor. ! sub
nit that It Is reasonable to hold that
the court would prohibit the hard
labor, but would enforce the Confnc-
ment II portion OF the statute is Uu-
constitutional. this Is no reason for
holding that all the criminals should
b. turned loose. 4 misdemcanant SEN
fenced to imprisonment at hard labor
tor a year can find no fault II the
nard labor provision is uncOnstituIOn-
al In other words, he has no right to
be discharged on that ground. lie will
not be heard to object on the ground
that he does not get the hard labor
with his confinement. The court has
the power to restrain the authorities
from innicting this punishment Of hard
labor In cases Of misdemeanors, II 1t
Is infamous punishment, therefore is
II not unreasonable to contend that
the prisoner must be let go altogether.
Take this observation-disclosures man
had been regularly sentenced to a
house of correction, where all of the
rules and regulations as to punishment
were perfectly appropriate and legal
for the punishment of persons charged
with the commission of misdemGanOrs.
Then suppose the Legislature should
provide that all persons committed TO
that institution should work at hard
labor in public. In other words, pun
ish them with penalty only proper
for persons guilty of infamous crimes.
Could It be held for a moment that
those regularly sentenced would have
to be discharged, and that thereafter
no persons guilty OF misdemeanOrs
could be punished? Would 1t not be
reasonable to hold that the act which
inflicted the infamous punishment up
;. on persons sent to this institution for
misdemeanors was unconstitutional
This rule of declaring statutes con.
stitutional In part and unconstitutional
in part is thoroughly established in
the law. But let us look a little fur
Their II the reasons given by his
, Honor are correct, no court can i'm
=. prison for contempt. In this country
Iany criminal or any person found guilty
/. of any offense may be detained in Oahu
: prison. II the reasoning of the learned
/. Judge Is correct, such imprisonment Il
!. unconstitutional, because II makes tn,
, person upon whom II is visited imam
Q Gus. The United States District Cour
' confines all persons sententenced II
I Oahu Jail Persons guilty of contemp
Q OF Court are confined in Oahu jail
\ persons guilty of misdemeanors ar
1 confined in Oahu jail. If persons con
; victed of offenses not infamous, cannO
! be confined in Oahu Jail. they must b
set free. When this matter Is reas
d oned out to its logical conclusion,
must re apparent that the decision o
i the learned Judge is wrong. Is II no
i ;nC consequences of such decisions tina
i ium? Men eXasperated by the law
@ delay. communities outraged by tn
+. miscarriage of justice, frequently tax
,, the law unto their own hands and an
s archy reigns supreme. 1t is a firm
established rule that on all question
y Of fact in criminal matters. the indi
5 vidual charged must have the beneG
l. of the doubt, but in all questions @
law, where there is Il question of dOub
d and where the result is going to be 5
IS disastrous to the individual as well a
u to the community, the court shOul
J. resolve all questions Of doubt in fave
OF the community and the indiyiduI
u together. 1t should rather strive I
II maintain the law than to create cuu
n fusion and anarchy.
x J. ALFRED MAGOON
d Honolulu, oct jth, 1903.