Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1910-04-07

Ing them, as now under three depart.
NEWSSTAND. pubic works. and public
instruction This simplfies the sys.
TEN. (2) Lands assigned to other de.
partments for actual use by those de.
partments or assigned back when no
longer needed, are to he assigned by
express order of the governor. and
thus the status of any public land will
always be matter of certainty. AT
present II is sometimes difficult under
the definitions of the statute to say
whether parcel Is under the land or
the public works department. (3) The
present uncertainty as to the status of
land obtained by the Territory by ex.
change is settled by providing that
such land shall have the same status
as II II had previously been public
land. At present IL is a question as
to what the respective powers of the
federal and territorial govcrnm hts
are in regard to It, (D The question.
now an open one. as to the proper per-
son. whether the governor or commits
sioner tn set aside public lands for
forest and some other purposes liz set.
tied by providing that II shall be the
governor. 90 The necessary general
powers are given for effectively carry.
ing out the land laws. as is done In the
reclamation act.
Section 81 of the organic act pre-.
scribes the disqualification of judges
and jurors.
The main object Of the amendment
Is to add to the disqualifcations of
judges that of having been of counsel.
. h., nj
bold that that was not disqualified.
, ton. partly on the ground that II was
not disqualification at common law
AMI marty on the ground that the dis.
qualifications enumerated In the
statute are exclusive.
incidentally % the provision pro-
hibiting judge from sitting on new
trial In case tried by him Is omitted
that by general consent not having
operated well; (2) the provision pro-
hibiting judge from sitting on an
appeal In any case In which he may
have given a decision on any point.
though the point is not involved In the
appeal, Is changed so as to prohibit
him merely from sitting ON an appeal
from any decision rendered by him:
and l3) the legislature is authorized
to add other causes of disqualification.
so as TO obviate possible necessity of
applying to Congress again for that
purpose.
Section of The bill has been add
ed In order to make more readily
available the appeals and writs of err.
ror which are provided for by the
amendment of section Sc of the or
ganic act passed March 3, 1905.
That amendment was intended to
give right of appeal from the terri.
torial supreme court to the Supreme
Court OF the United States in all
cases involving money value of
more than $4,000. and II was so under
stood both by bench and bar I'm Ha.
wall: but that construction and the
practical value of the amendment have
been largely destroyed by the recen.
decision OF the United States Supreme
Court.
This case Is reported in 2l1 United
States Reports. 1862. and the point of
the decision is one Of practice merely.
holding that decision OF our terri.
torial supreme court. rendered upon
exceptions to the rulings or judgments
VI u 'll'hll NbHINs UOtS 1lOI
such final judgment" as is contem.
plated by the act, which confers juris.
diction upon the Federal Supreme
Court to review the final Judgments"
OF the territorial supreme court.
The result OF this decision is that
territorial practitioners. In order to
avail themselves OF the privilege of
taking their cases to the Federal Su.
preme Court for final review must
abandon the time.honored procedure
OF a bill of exceptions as a means of
securing a review by the territorial
supreme court Of the rulings and judy.
mems OF the inferior courts of Hawaii
and must take their cases to the ter
ritorial supreme court through the me.
dunn OF writ Of error instead OF by
means OF bill of exceptions.
An important objection to subs itut
ing writs OF error for bills of excep.
lions In the territorial practice Is that
II Is much more expensive. Another
ana very forceful objection. especial
~ In the case of comparatively poor
liigants, Is that no writ of error can
be obtained bv defendant against
whom the inferior court has rendered
Judgment until the applicant shall pro-
cure and file bond with sufficient
snreties. to the effect that he will nav
the Judgment against which he seeks
relief In the event that he shall he
defeated In the supreme court. Now
while II may often happen that judg.
ment VIII be rendered against a de.
PENDANT through some error of law
which his counsel may advise him is
well worthy of having reviewed In the
upper court and Of which he can Sc.
cure prompt and inexpensive re-
view through the medium of bill OF
executions vet II may he quite i'm
possible for him to obtain suretIes nm.
on his bond TO actually pay the iudg
ment In the event Of his ">faat In the
snnreme court And when II is con.
sidered that only In cases involving
more than $4,000 exclusive of costs
can he In any event secure review
by the Federal Sunromo Court n bo.
comes manifest that the bond required
MS n condition nrecedont to Eig Oh.
tanning a writ Of error IN the tirst In
stance In order To tnke iho case to on
local supreme court. Is n matter of
serious momen'
Again In CRIMINAL cases " is i'm.
possible under tho local law 10 Ob,lIn