The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-09-30

II Following are the deliverances of the
Il Supreme Court justices on the jury law
| question, spoken on Thursday and filed
in writing yesterday:
Opinions Delivered Orally.
| Frear, c. J.: The court does not
| deem it necessary to reserve it's opin
| ion on this question. 1t is of the opin-
| ion that the jurors for the present term
| of the circuit court of the first circuit
were properly selected under the pro-
| visions relating to the selection of
| jurors set forth in the Revised Laws;
| that is, under the law as it stood prior
| to the amendment made by Act IA of
the Laws of 1905.
I do not think a great deal need be
said upon this subject. The question
seems to be whether the provisions of
the new law operated as repeal of
the provisions of the old law from the
time of the enactment of the new law.
AS stated yesterday, the court is of
the opinion that the provisions of the
new law would not under all the cir
cumstances operate as such repeal
until they should become applicable.
Without speaking for the other mem
bers of the court, it occurred to me that
tinction between law which was in
form an amendment of a previously ex-
isting law, as, for instance, in the pres
ent case, where the new law provides
that the old law shall be amended to
read so and so-thus changing the very
language of the old law at once, and,
on the other hand, an act, which was
in form an Independent act, simply
providing that hereafter such and such
acts should be performed, for instance,
by the jury commissioners, but not to
be performed until sometime in the flu !
ture. In the latter case it would be /
very clear, [ think, that the provisions
of the new law would not repeal the |
provisions of the old law until they /
should become applicable, for the re- !
peal, in so far as there was a repeal, /
would be solely by implication on the |
ground of inconsistency, and there |
would be no inconsistency until the |
provisions of the new law became ap-
plicable. I have myself greater doubt
in case like the present, where the
new law expressly states that the old
law should be amended so as to read
so and so, that is, where in form the
old law itself is changed and there IS
a substitution of the new for the old,
but 1 am inclined to think on the whole
that the distinction can not be carried
SO far as to control in the present
case. 1t seems to me that notwlth-
standing that distinction the provisions
of the new law were not intended, as
shown by the act itself, to repeal the
provisions of the old law until they
should become applicable. Much of
the old law is left untouched by the
new and certain portions of the new
are identical or nearly so with CORE
spending portions of the old law-for
instance, the provision as to the ap-
pointment of the jury commissioners,
which is substantially the same, and as
to their duty to prepare jury lists,
which has not been changed; it could
hardly be intended that the lists chosen
by the jury commissioners last Decem-
Der should be continued and yet be
useless; that is, the jury lists under
the old law, as unchanged by the new
law, would be in existence and yet
could not be utilized. That is simply
one illustration.
I do not commit nv associates TO
these views The court, however, IS
of the opinion-of the
same opinion as it was yesterday-that
the new act does not repeal the old ex-
cept in so far as it is inconsistent with
it and in SO far as such inconsistent
provisions are applicable and when
they become applicable.
Hartwell. j.: When a statute amends I
. prior statute $50 as to read as fol- I
lows transactions under the carrier Z
statute are not thereby invalidated, as
t seems to me, and could not be invall-
lated without infringing upon the rule
against retrospective legislation, which Z
S prohibited by general and very q
Early statute which was adopted by the q
Organic Act. .
As to the jury list, drawn under the
former act providing that it remain :
he jury list for the year ensuing after
December the 18th, to hold that it IS .
lot legal list ought not to be done by .
inv uncertain inference. / do not Q
hink this result is necessarily implied q
" the subsequent act. Take appoint .
nents of jury commissioners, if they
we're invalid new appointments would
ave to be made, if the earlier statute .
vas no longer in force as to past trans .
lotions and they could do nothing un- D