The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-11-08
APPEAL TO WASHINGTON
UPON JUDGES QUESTION
Attorneys for A. W. Carter Do Not Accept Ter
ritorial Supreme Court Decision---Several
important Cases Decided.

more than the act of 1912, which re
lated chiefly to juries and began:
There are two distinct kinds o.
| courts. One kind where the judges Oh
I tax officers decide the case by them
| selves. and the other kind where they
| cannot act by themselves, but certain
| other persons must be associated with
| them. These persons who are asso-
| ciated with them shall constitute the
| jury
! 1.-THE first comprehensive act cover
| ing the judicial system with any de-
| gree of completeness was that of 1847
| That is largely the basis, directly or
| indirectly, of ALI subsequent compre-
hensive acts relative to the jury. It
| divided Jurisdiction between certain
named courts and judges at chambers.
Then came the constitution of 1852,
which has been the basis of ali subse-
quent constitutions. 1t provided in
Article 81: The judicial power of the
kingdom shall be vested in one Su-
preme Court and in such inferior courts
as the Legislature may from time to
time establish This was followed the
next year by the second comprehen-
sive judiciary act, drafted, we believe.
by the same person who drafted the
S@lllCl uSltC0 L0C. hC
main object of this act was to con-
form the laws to the change in the
Supreme Court
1.-The former Supreme Court, consist
ing of the king, premier and four
chiefs, whose functions had practically
ceased, was dropped altogether, and
what had previously been the Superior
Court of law and equity in name, but
oJ,a otin
Supreme Court as well in reality, was
made such in name also. This act
also preserves the distinction between
the courts and the judges at chambers
in matters of jurisdiction, methods of
appeal, etc.
Next came the Civil Code of 1859,
embodying, in Sections S15-12S2, a codi-
fication of the laws relating to the
judiciary, namely, the acts of 1S47 and
1852, and a number Of subsequent acts
of minor Importance, but preserving
the distinction between the courts and
the judges at chambers in language
for the most part still in force in the
statute books.
1.-THE constitution of 1864 followed
copying for the most part the provis
ions of that of 1852, including the
provision now in question, which was
Article 81 of that constitution.
1.-The constitution of 1887 was copied
mostly from that of 1854, and contains
the same Article 81. Meanwhile a
number of more or less important acts
were passed more fully defining or
altering in detail the Jurisdiction and
procedure, that already for the most
part existed, in regard to particular
subjects. These are set forth in the
compilations of 1884 and 1897, which
were not enacted.
1.-The judiciary Act of 1892 made
some important changes in the or
ganization of the judiciary and the
jurisdiction of the courts, but preserv-
ed the same distinction between the
courts and the judges at chambers.
1.-THE constitution of 1894 copied the
provisions of that of 1864 relating to
the judiciary with some changes not
material to the questions now under
consideration. The provision now
particularly in question appears as
Article 80.
I'm view of the fact" the court COM
ments, that constitution after consti-
tuition and statute after statute has
been adoped by constitutional conven-
lions and legislatures and accepted
without question by bench and bar and
the public throughout the sixty-four
years of organized constitutional goy-A
eminent in Hawaii, recognizing the
constitutionality and propriety of pro-
visions such as those now called in
question coupled with the fact that
the Judges at chambers in the exer-
else of jurisdiction in equity and pro-
bate matters are and have been re-
garded as courts, and not only that
but courts of record. it would be pre-
posterous to hold that the statutes
comforting or defining such jurisdic-
ton of judges at chambers would be
void under Hawaiian constitutions or
Immediately prior to the enactment OF
the Organic Act
The court analyses the provision of
the Organic Act under which the juris-
diction of circuit judges at chambers
IS asailed, and finds that Congress did
not intend to abrogate any of the Ha-
waiiaa judiciary laws by implication.
This is shown by the fact that Con-
gress retained of such laws what it
intended to retain and abolished what
it intended to abolish-no more and no ,
less in either case