The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-11-08
APPEAL TO WASHINGTON
UPON JUDGES QUESTION
Attorneys for A. W. Carter Do Not Accept Ter.
ritorial Supreme Court Decision---SeveraI
important Cases Decided.

existed and rapidly developed for some
years afterward.
Prior to the constitution OF 1870
there were scarcely any statutory
provisions relative to the judiciary.
After that until the net OF 1917, or
ganizing the judiciary. there was little
more than the act of lSi2, which re-
lated chiefly to juries and began:
"'There are two distinct kinds of
courts. one kind whese the judges OF
| 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 assoc
ciated with them shall constitute the
| jury
THE first comprehensive act cover
ing the judicial system with any de-
gree of completeness was that OF 1S41.
That is largely the basis directly or
indirectly, of all subsequent compre-
hensive acts relative to the jury. 1t
| divided jurisdiction between certain
named courts and judges at chambers
Then came the constitution of 1852,
| which has been the basis of all 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-
sve judiciary act, drafted we believe,
by the same person who drafted the
constitution, Chief Justice Lee. The
main object of this act was to con-
form the laws to the change in the
Supreme Court.
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
had already become practically the
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
i'm matters of jurisdiction, methods of
appeal, etc.
Next came the Civil Code of 1859,
embodying, in Sections S15-l2S2, a codi-
tication of the laws relating to the,
judiciary. namely, the acts of 1S47 and
of minor Importance, but preservingl
the distinction between the courts and
the judges at chambers in language
for the most part still in force in the
statute books.
"The constitution of 1864 followed,
copying for the most part the provis-
ions of that aof 1852 including the J.,
provision now in question, which was
Article Ga of that constitution.
1.-The constitution of 1887 was copied
mostly from that of 1864, and contains
the same Article Ga. Meanwhile a
number of more or less important acts
We're 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
We're not enacted.
1.-THE Judiciary Act of 1892 made
some important changes in the or
ganiza ton of the judiciary and the
jurisdiction of the courts, but preserv-
ed the same distinction between the
courts and the judges at chambers.
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 So.
I'm view of the fact" the court COM
ments, that constitution after consti-
tuition ard statute after statute has
been adoped by constitutional conven-
without question by bench and bar and
the public throughout the sixtyfour
years of organized constitutional gov
eminent in Hawaii, recognizing the
constituticnality 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, 1t 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-
dlction OF circuit judges at chambers
Is asailed, and finds that Congress did
not intend 10 abrogate any Of the Ha-
waiian judiciary laws by implication.
This In shown by the fact that Con-
gress retained OF such laws what II
intended TO retain and abolished what
II intended % nboiish-no more ana no
less In either case,
ooURT NOTES.
Iua... n,bIpsnu uuuniuIad Anuas |