Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1904-11-07

not stand If in conflict with the provi-
sions of that Act (see % Ops. Attor.
ney General 53g); and the Circuit
Courts mentioned in Section 81 of that
Act may. perhaps. be regarded, from
the Territorial standpoint. as consti
tutional courts. See Hind vs.. Wilders
s, Co. IA Haw. 1922: Eek parte Smith,
"a Haw. 269. Yet even a constitu
tional provision must be construed in
connection with other provisions OF
the instrument. and also in the light
of the circumstances under which II
was adopted and the history which
preceded IL. and the natural conse.
ouences of a proposod construction
with a view TO ascertaining the inten.
ton of its trainers. This rule is espe.
cially applIcable in the case of an Act
which. as In the case Of the Organic
Act now In 1uestion "a legislative Act
from the standpoint OF the body that
enacted III. contains many. different
provisions bearing upon the same sub.
jects: which was enacted with refer
ence TO a highly developed system Of
government already existing: and
which manifests upon its face from
beginning to end an intention to con.
tinue that system except as changed
I'm certain respects by that Act. A
striking illustration OF the application
of these rules of construction Is found
| In the case of Hawaii vs.. Mankichi.
1870 U. s, 1877. in which the literal
meaning of a provision of the Joint
Resolution of Annexation, which in a
sense was the constitution Of Hawaii
for about two years. was held to be
controlled by the general intent shown
by the resolution as a whole, by the
circumstances under which II was
adopted, the past history of Hawaii
and her judicial system, and the dis.
astrous consequences that would re-
suit from n narrower construction. It
Is also general rule Of construction
that when one state borrows law
from another state IL also borrows the
construction previously put upon 1t by
the first state.
The question is not merely whether
Congress intended by Section 81 of
the Organic Act to prohibit, the crca.
ton of such court lof Judges at
chambers) In the future. but whether
IL intended to abrogate such courts
already existing That section Is Dor.
rowed with notifications from the pro.
vision found in the last four Hawaiian
constitutions. under which such courts
must be held. under the rule OF long
contemporary construction. not to men
ton other rules, to have been legally
constituted. II no notifications had
been made in this borrowed section
could we hesitate to hold that Con
gress did not intend that It should
mean something so radically differen,
from what II has been construed fol
half a century to mean, or that Con
grcss did not intend by adopting the
same provision to repeal by implica
ton what had become go thorough,
established under e?
In the nature of things there Nigh,
be courts OF Circuit Judges at cham
hers consistently with the presence o
the words Circuit Courts" in this pro
vision.
Not only Is there nothing in Section
81 that requires us to hold that Con
gress intended. by the insertion of tn,
words Circuit Court" TO effect tn,
important change contendcd for {
change by mere vague implication
that would abrogate In toto the court,
having equity and probate Jurisdiction
but there IL much In this section tC