The Hawaiian gazette., 1908-12-04
MOR|TA KE|zO
CASE DECISION

The Morita Keizo case, which was de-
cided by the Supreme Court of the
United States November Is, did not de- |
eide whether the circuit courts of the
Territory had power to naturalize aliens |
prior to the enactment Of the recent |
statute on the subject, and that ques- |
tion is yet an open one, to be raised
at any time. The question was raised |
on behalf of Morita KeiZo in an effort |
to save him from the death peralty. |
For anything in the decision in his
case, it may be raised in behalf of any
one else under similar conditions-con-
| ditions which are still possible. What
the Supreme Court decided was that this
| question could not be raised by habeas
| corpus in this case; that habeas corpus
could not usurp the functions of writ
| Of error.
Judge Humphreys, who has been con
nected with the case, has received a
copy of the decision of the court, and
il is herewith presented. 1t is entitled:
Morita Keizo, plaintiff in error, VS.. Will
liam Henry, High Sheriff of the Terri
tory of Hawaii; in error to the Supreme
Court of the Territory of Hawaii. The
! opinion is by MFR. Justice Moody. 1t
| is us follows:
This is writ of error directed to a
| Judgment of the Supreme Court of the
Territory of Hawaii, discharging writ
of habeas corpus and remanding the
petitioner to the custody of the sheriff.
The plaintiff in error was indicted for
murder by grand jury at term of
a Circuit Court of the Territory, held
in August, 1905. The grand jury was
composed of sixteen members. A plea
in abatement was seasonably fled, al
leging that eight of the grand jurors
were not citizens of the United States or
of the Territory, qualification pre-
scfibed by the laws of the Territory.
The Territory Joined issue on this plea.
The parties then agreed upon the facts
upon which it was based, namely, that
the eight grand jurors questioned were
citizens only by virtue of judgments of
naturalization in Circuit Court of the
Territory to naturalize aliens. Under a
statute of the Territory that question
: was certified to the Supreme Court, and
that Court held that the Circuit Courts
of the Territory had jurisdiction to
naturalize and that the grand jury pos
sessed the necessary qualifications.
Thereupon the trial judge overruled the
plea in abatement, and an exception was
taken. After due proceedings, plaintiff
in error was found guilty as charged,
and ON March %, 1906, sentenced to
death. Thereupon he prosecuted writ
of error to the Supreme Court of the
Territory, assigning, among other err
rors, the overriding of the plea in
abatement. The Judgment of the lower
n .a1 40
Court on October %, 1906, and a death
warrant thereupon issued by the Gov
ernor of the Territory, commanding the
High Sheriff to execute the sentence of
death on January %, 1907. No writ of
error was sued out on the foregoing
judgments of the Supreme Court. The
: plaintiff in error, however, six days be-
4 fore the date fixed for his execution,
fled a petition for habeas corpus in the
Supreme Court of the Territory, basing
his claim for discharge from custody
upon the same facts set forth in the
plea of abatement and in the agreed
statement of facts. The petition al
legged that for the reason of the dis
qualification of eight members of the
grand jury, the indictment was void,
and that the trial Court was without
jurisdiction to proceed against him I'M
der it. The writ of habeas corpus was
discharged and the petitioner remanded
i. to the custody of the sheriff, and to
this Judgment the present writ of error
is directed.
The principal question argued before
us, by counsel is, whether the eight
members of the grand jury, whose quail
: ifcations were questioned, were nat
uralized by Courts having the authority
to naturalize aliens. But we find no
occasion to decide or consider this ques
3 ton. If the plaintiff in error desired
the judgment of this Court upon it he
, should have brought a writ of error ia
the judgment of the Supreme Court OF
the Territory which passed upon it in
6 affirming the Judgment of conviction in
c the trial Court. He may not lie by, ms
he did in this case, until the time fol-
the execution of the judgment comes
near, and then seek to raise collaterally
by habeas corpus, questions not affect
ing the jurisdiction of the Court whicl
convicted him, which were open to hin
in the original ease, and, If properly
presented then, could ultimately Nav,
come to this court upon writ of error
PROFESSIONALLY, if the trial Court ha,
exceeded it's jurisdiction prisoner hell
under its Judgment might be discharg
|. ed from custody upon a writ of habea
4 corpus by another Court having tn
J authority to entertain the writ, ex-part
LANCE, Is Wall. 1863; ex parte Siebold
/, 100 U. S. al; ex parte Yarbrough, IL
!. U. s. 651; ex parte Wilson, ia U. S
r. All; though even in case of this kin
:, Court will sometimes refrain from re
leasing prisoner upon writ Of habea
- corpus, and will remit him to his remed
- by writ of error. higgins V. Unite
"a States, 100 U. s. SAT; Urquhart '
~ Brown, POS U. s. 179. But no Cour
e may properly release a prisoner unde
" conviction of sentence of another Cour
- unless for wantof jurisdiction of tn
- cause or person or for some other mat
ter rendering its proceedings void
Where Court has jurisdiction, mer
errors which have been committed i
:, y the course of the proceedings can no
n be corrected upon writ of habea
:. corpus, which may not in this name
~ uaurn tho funotinna of a xrrit of arrnl