The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1908-10-15
EDMUNDS ACT
NOT EXCLUSIVE
Icontinued from Page oneJ

NSOhNAhuGu AlOlu Il axe Oue.l
Act are not repealed expressly or by
necessary implication and as their en-
forcement by Territorial courts is NOT
inconsistent with other provisions in
the Organic Act but is consistent with
them they remain in force under Sec
ton even If inconsistent with the
Edmunds-Tucker Act. If the section
had declared that laws should continue
in force which were consistent with
the constitution or laws of the United
States or with other provisions in the
act it would perhaps more clearly ap-
pear that while laws inconsistent with
the constitution could not remain,
those laws which were consistent with
the Organic Act, conforming to all it's
provisions, would remain. This view
conforms to the construction placed
upon the act in Carter V. Gear, 16 Haw.
245, in which case the court said that
the act contains many different pro-
visions bearing upon the same sub
ject,' that it was enacted with re-
ference to a highly developed system
of government already existing" and
manifests upon its face from begin
ming to end an intention to continue
that system except as changed in GER
tain respects by that act The case
was affirmed in 1877 u. S. 34S, the court,
after referring to Section 6, saying,
BY section 7 the constitution of the
Republic of Hawaii and a large number
of its laws, specially enumerated, are
repealed, but the statutes giving pro-
bate and equity jurisdiction to the Cir
cult Courts are not mentioned"
Justice Ballou among other things
says:
The proposition that where congress
has legislated under it's constitutional
powers all state or local laws upon the
same subject are superseded is not of
universal application and is extremely
in its application to penal
statutes. OF tie powers given to con-
gress and not forbidden to the states,
some are exclusive while some are con-
Exclusive jurisdiction in
matters of naturalization and bank
ruptcy necessarily follows from the re-
quirement that these shall be uniform
throughout the United States (Sturges
V. CrOwninshield, 4 Wheat. 122D and
the power to regulate commerce among
the several states is alos exclusive
from the necessary incompatibility be-
tween two regulations of the same sub
ject. Gibbons v Ogden, Wheat. l.
On the other hand, the power to levy
and collect taxes Is obviously not ex-
elusive of state legislation upon the
same subject.
Upon the annexation of the Republic
of Hawaii to the United States all To-
cal legislation would, under the princi-
pies of international law, remain in
force until action by the legislative
power of the latter. Turning now
to Sections and of the Organic Act,
we find that there is no express repeal
Of the laws of Hawaii upon the gen
eral ground of their inconsistency with
the laws of the United States. If
Section stood alone the implication
that inconsistent laws were repealed
would probably follow from the con-
tinuing in force of the laws not incOn-
sistent, but it would still be a repeal
by implication, the necessity for which
is excluded by Sec. Z, which specifical-
and parts of sctions of the laws of
Hawaii by reference to both subject
and number The inference is almost
irresistible that Section contains all
the Hawaiian laws which congress in
tended to designate as inconsistent
with the laws of the United States,
and that in view of the retention of
the local Hawaiian tribunals to deal
with local law and the establishment
Of a separate United States district
court to deal with federal questions,
congress did not consider as mconsist-
ent the retention on the statute books
of local laws upon subjects covered
by federal statutes, even though the
local law was to be administered by
different tribunals and might result in
different penalties This view is some
what strengthened by the inadequacy
of the machinery bestowed upon the
federal court upon the supposition that
it was to do the police work of the en-
tire Territory in regard to offences
against morality, to say nothing of
murder, manslaughter and every other
crime punishable under a United States
statute The question being one of