The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-07-07

S. 545, s. e. 46 Law Ed. 321; Equitabl,
Life Assurance Society v Brown
admr., 1S7 U. 5. sos, S. c. Al Law. Ed
1907, but in view of the historical
facts, with the knowledge of whicl
Congress must, undoubtedly, have beer
charged, that the previously existina
Republic, Provisional Government and
Kingdom of Hawaii, had for over hal.
a century, provided and maintained fol
the benefit, betterment and uplifting
of the people of these islands an in
dependent government, comprising anC
cOmprehendlng every detail and cir
cumstance of the government of mod
ern civilized nation, in its later stages
patterned after the form of govern
ment obtaining in the United States
itself. (Hawaii V. Mankichi, 100 U.
s., 1877, S. c. At Law. Ed. 1016)
Counsel for defendant challenges the
propriety of employing the popular ex-
| preston used in referring to our or
ganic act as "Our Constitution, in
sisting that it is absurd for people
to recognize as a constitution a con
gressional enactment which, of itself,
is subservient and subordinate to the
! Constitution of the United States. But
the constitutions of the several states
are subservient and subordinate to the
| Constitution of the United States, as
well as the organic acts of the several
| territories, and | am inclined to think
| that the popular expression is not so
wide of the mark, if one compares the
relations established between the peo-
pie of the United States and the Con-
gress of the United States, by means
of the Constitution of the United
States, and the relations established
between the Congress of the United
States and the legislatures of the sew
eral states and territories, by means
of the constitutions and organic acts,
respectively, of such states and terri
tories.
1t is well settled that the people of
the United States grant to the Con-
gress of the United States only such
powers of government as are expressly
conferred by the terms thereof or nee
essarily implied therefrom, reserving
to themselves all powers of govern
ment not expressly granted or neces-
sarily implied, and, on the other hand,
that the Congress of the United States,
through and by means of the constitu
tons of the several states, confers upon
the legislatures of the several states
plenary governmental powers, reserv
ing unto itself only such powers of
government the exercise of which, by
the State legislatures, is expressly in
hibited by such constitutions. How
ever different may be the manner of
their adoption or the methods of their
PRONUNCIATION, | am unable to observe
any essential difference in effect be-
tween the constitution of state and
the organic act of a territory, as the
authority conferred by Congress upon
the Several territorial legislatures, by
means OF the several organic acts, is a
limitation of power similar tor the au-
thority conferred by Congress upon the
State legislatures of the several states
by means of their several constitutions, |
and not grant of power, such as that
derived by Congress under the Con |
stitution of the United States.
Under this construction, no parallel |
can we'll be drawn between the Iimlta-
tions of power impressed by Congress
on the Legislature of this Territory,
under the Organic Act, and the grant
of power conferred by the people Of
any state or territory through its .es-
islature, to any municipal corporation,
or body polite or corporate, eyerels-
ing governmental functions, within its
BOUNDARIES, and in the light of this
construction there can be no question
but that the Legislature of this Terri
tory possessed full power to penalize
any act or acts, although such act '1r
acts were already penalized by act OF
the Congress of the United States, I'M
less the power to legislate in regard
to such act or acts and the subject
matter thereof was expressly reserved
to itself by Congress, in the Organic
Act, or unless the act of Congress IN
regard to the subject matter of such
legislation was, in express terms, to
take effect in this Territory, and no
part or portion of either the Organic
Act or the Edmunds-Tucker Act has
been called to my attention which can
have such effect. Let the demurrer be,
and the same is hereby, overruled.
Judge Humphreys claims that by this
decision Judge Robinson has held in
effect that the Edmunds Act is not in
force in this Territory, and that, for
that reason, prosecutions of this class
of cases may be had under the Terri
torial statutes. Judge Dole has held
that the Edmunds Act is in force in
this Territory.
Judge Humphreys will take the Mar
tin case to the Supreme Court of the
Territory.