The Hawaiian gazette., 1915-12-31
judiciary Pension, Bill

II N behalf of phase of home rule in Hawaii,
or rather of keeping Hawaii as far as possible
on the basis of State as Territory can be- as
the Organic Act intends, the bill now before con-
gress dealing with the pensioning of a retired
United States Judge calls for considerable amend
ment before 1t will meet the requirements, No
adequate reason be advanced why judge
of territorial United States court should not be
given retirement full pay on the same principle
that federal court judge of State is retired at
the age of seventy, or on the same principle as
an ofhcer Of the Army the Navy is retired for
age and the only logical objection that can be adj
Vanced against the bin introduced by Delegate
Kuhio, as noted at length in this paper yesterday,
is that it fails to meet the situation.
In the first place, the Delegates bill purports
to amend section 714 Of the Revised Laws of the
United States" and there is no such thing as the
Revised Laws of the United States nor is there
any such thing as section 714 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States-which of course is
what is referred to-the latter section having been
repealed by section 2o7 Of the Act of Congress
approved March 3, 1911, known the Judicial
Code" The repealed provision, however, was re-
enacted in section 200 of the Judicial Code, and
it is the latter section which requires amendment.
In the second place the language of the bill is
not adapted to the supposed intent of the drafts
Territory on the same footing those of the
States as to retirement on full pay. The language,
instead of when any judge of any court of the
United States resigns his Office, after having held
his commission as such at least ten years, and
having attained the age of seventy years." etc,
as the proposed bill has it, should better be some
thing like this :
When any judge of any court of the Unit
ed States resigns his office, or his term of
Office expires, after having held commission
or commissions as judge of any such court or
courts at least ten years, and having attained
the age of seventy years, etc.
Without some such a wording the bill does not
clearly cover. Judge Doe's case. Our judges never
have ten years commission, but they have six
years commissions which may be renewed Hence
the suggestion.
And the provso of the proposed bill is to be
criticized for gross uncertainty, for creating pos
sble confusion; for it applies the statute only to
the judge OF the United States court in and for
the District and Territory of Hawaii" Why not
apply it to the judges? 1t may happen some day
that we have two judges both Of seventy years
age and ten years service.
If it should happen that the word resign" is
used with any idea of Judge Doles being appoint
ed with the understanding that his resignation
would follow when required, then it may be said
that the added words "or his term of Office ex-
pres still do no harm and they there ready
to cover possible cases of long service in which
the judge does not resign. Why resort to such
triAing, undignihed, unworthy subterfuge? Why
not make the law, according to the above sugges-
tons, the same in the States and not place our
senior judge in any such position of having to
bargain to resign that else may be
appointed in his place, and who, though over
seventy years old, is as active and competent
mentally and physically such notable con-
temporaries as James Bryce, James J, Hill, Thorn
as A. Edison Elihu Root and Mr. Ripley, who
at seventy, account of his services has just had
his salary president of the Santa Fe Railway
increased from $4,000 to 100000 a year