The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-09-11
ONE SOVEREIGNTY
ONLY IN HAWAII
All of Our Courts Are Created
by Congressional
Action.

which the issue was raised as to tn,
relation of Hawaii to the United State
in the matter of jurisdiction. Manue
Perez and Augusta Walsh. indicted un
der the Edmunds' act. pleaded a pre-
yious acquittal in the District Court
| The question of law was whether al
acquittal in that court, it being Ter
ritorial court, was a bar to a proseeu
tidh in the United States Distric1
| court. Judge Dole decided that it wa,
and sustained the plea in bar. Ii
deciding the case Judge Dole said:
The defendants in this case are
charged with adultery and plead il
bar an acquittal in a Territorial court
on the same charge and covering the
same period. This is contested on the
] ground that an acquittal in a Terri
torial court is not bar to a trial
| of charge of the same case as a
Federal offense. Former decisions in
this court have been cited United
States VS.. Kunda and ~Haro, Cease No
| %, decided, November 4, 1901; also
United States VS.. Lee Sa Kee, u S.
ID. c. Haw., --. In this last case,
which was decided on demurrer last
January, one of the grounds of demur-
rer was that the crime of adultery
was punishable under the laws of the
Territory of Hawaii and that it was
therefore not punishable under the Fed
eral law, and it was urged that if it
was punishable under both laws per
sons would be liable to be tried twice
for the same act, against the rule
against placing one twice in jeopardy.
The court ruled in that ease that both
laws were in force and cited the Muir
ply case, 40 Pac. 39S, that although one
might be liable to be tried twice for
the same act, it would in fact be trials
for two offenses, for violating a Fed
eral statute and for violating a Ter
ritOrial statute.
1t is established law that the same
act may constitute an Offense against
the United States and a State "sub-
jecting the guilty party to punishment
under the laws of each government;
and may embrace two or more of
enses.' Crossley VS.. California, 16S
L. S. $40. Gal; Cross VS.. North Caro-
lima, 132 Id. 131, 1873; Moore VS. Hi
nOis, 50 ID Is, 1920.
As rule, these eases in which pun
ishments may be inflicted for the same
act under two jurisdictions, are cases
in which although the act is the same
the offense is somewhat different; for
instance, resisting United States
Marshal, an offense against the United
States, and assault and battery or riot,
an offense against the State. 1t also
appears to be vaguely conceded that
an offense which is the same as to
both sovereignties may be punished by
-of hn
such a rule is rare and unsatisfactory.
Although the law recognizes the right
of separate trials and punishments for
the same act by the United States and
a State, yet, the sentiment, coming
down from old common law times,
against placing a man twice in jeop-
ardy for the same offense, is so strong
that the Supreme Court of the Unit
ed States recognizes such action as
exceptional and only excusable in in
stances of peculiar enormity or where
the public safety demanded extraor-
binary rigor.'' Fox VS.. Ohio, 46 U. S.
40, 434.
is a Territory in the same class
with a State in this questions The
ease of In re Murphy, supra, would
seem to support such a view and the
case of Moore VS. Illinois, supra, would
also seem to incline to that view, as
it uses the expression 'every citizen
of the United States is also citizen
of State or Territory. He may be
said to owe allegiance to two sover-
eigns and NAV be liable TO punishment
for an infraction of the laws of
either
The recent case of Grafton V. United
States, 200 o. s. 333, would, however,
seem to throw new light on the situa
ton, or, perhaps it may be said more
correctly, to have made an advance in
the law of this question. The case
was that of a soldier in the Philippine
Islands who, while in the discharge of
his duty as sentry, shot a Filipino.
He was tried by court martial under
the military regulations and acquitted.
He was afterwards arrested and tried
by one of the courts of the Philippines
and convicted. The case was carried to
the Supreme Court of the Philippines
where the Judgment was affirmed, the
plea of double jeopardy being over.
ruled by that court. The ease then
went to the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States which made the following
rulings in its decision:
''The government of State does
not derive its powers from the United
States. while the government of the
Philippines owes its existence wholly
to the United States, and its judicial
tribunals exert all their powers by au-
thority of the United States. The juris-
diction and authority of the United
States over that territory and its inhab-
itants. for all legitimate purposes of
is paramount. So that the
cases holding that the same acts com
mitted in State of the Union may
constitute an offense against the United
States and also a distinct offense
against the State, do not apply here,
where the two tribunals that tried the
accused exert all their powers under
and by authority of the same govern
ment-that of the United States"
pages 354-5).
The expression repeated and empha |
sized that person tried for an offense
in tribunal deriving its jurisdiction |
and authority from the United States |
and acquitted or convicted cannot be /
tried again for the same offense in /