The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-07-16

the Code of 1897, adopting the common
law of England contained a proviso
that mo person shall be subject to
criminal proceedings except as provid-
ed by the Hawaiian laws" These laws
provided expressly Csec. GIG. Penal
Laws of 1890 as follows: THE neces-
sary bills of Indictment shall be duly
prepared by legal prosecuting officer
and be duly presented to the presiding
Judge of "A court before the arraignment
of the accused, and such Judge shall
after examination, certify upon each
bill of indictment whether he finds the
same a true bill or not The question
thus squarely presented to every Judge
i'm the Republic was, whether he was
bound to summon a grand jury under
the Newlands resolution, when no pro-
vision existed by law for empanelling
the same or their payment and when
in so doing he was obliged to ignore
the plain statute OF mis- own country
1t is not intended here to decide that
the words NOR contrary to the Consti-
tuition of the United States are mean-
ingless Clearly they would be opera
tive upon any municipal legislation
thereafter adopted, and upon any pro-
ceedings thereafter had when the ap-
plication of the Constitution would not
provisions conducive to the peace and
good order of the community There
fore we should answer without hesita-
ton in the negative the question put
by counsel for the petitioner i'm their
brief Would municipal statutes of
Hawaii, allowing a conviction of trea-
son on circumstantial evidence, or on
the testimony of one witness. depriving
a person of liberty by the will of the
legislature and without process, or con-
fscatng private prl perty for public
use without compensation, remain in
force after an annexation of the Ter
ritory to the United States. which are
conditioned upon the extinction of all
legislation contrary to the Constitu-
tion?" We would even go farther. and
say that rights of the Constitution
were intended to apply from the mo-
ment of annexation; but we place our
decision of this case upon the ground
that the two rights alleged to be Violat-
ed in this case are not fundamental in
their nature, but concern merely n
method of procedure which sixty years
of practice had shown to be suited to
the conditions of the islands, and well
calculated to conserve the rights OF
their citizens to their lives, their prop
: erty and their well-being.
Inasmuch as we are of opinion that
the status of the islands and the pow
; ers of their provisional government
were measured by the Newlands reso.
! luton. and the case has been argued
upon that theory, Wv have not deemed
f it necessary to consider what would
, have been it's position had the impOr.
, tant words nor contrary to the Con.
, stitution of the United States" beer
: omitted, or to reconsider the questions
which arose in the Insular Tariff case!
, regarding the power of Congress to an
, mex territory without at the same time
, extending the Contribution over it. O
4 course, for the reasons already stated
the questions involved in this cas-
p could arise only FROM such as occurred
, between the taking effect of the Join
Resolution of July Z, 1898, and the Ac
g of April 80, 1900, establishing the Ter
h ritorial Government.
The decree of the District Court TO
= the Territory of Hawaii must be re
= versed, and the case remanded to tina
r court with instructions to dismiss tn
petition.