Source: http://freehawaii.org/organicact.html
Timestamp: 2018-11-21 03:58:43
Document Index: 53804132

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6', '§ 1435', 'art. 17', '§ 1', '§ 338', '§ 100', 'Art. 17', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 116', '§ 1', '§ 73', '§ 6', '§ 1', 'art 1', 'art 2']

Organic Act to Provide a Government for the Territory of Hawaii
ORGANIC ACT.
Historical note. - This is the Act, as since amended, of April 30, 1900, c. 339, 31 Stat. 141 (2 Supp. R.S. 1141), prepared and recommended by a commission appointed by the President under the Joint Resolution of Annexation of July 7, 1898, 30 Stat. 750 (2 Supp. R.S. 895). The formal transfer of sovereignty under that resolution took place Aug. 12, 1898, and this Organic Act, creating the Territory, took effect June 14, 1900. See Joint Resolution RLH 1955, page 13, with notes thereto, for application of Federal Constitution and laws to Hawaii between annexation and establishment of territorial government.
For decisions under this Organic Act, see notes to sections thereof.
The volumes mentioned in the second paragraph of this section did not contain all the laws then in force referred to in the first paragraph, nor were all the laws therein contained then in force. The Civil Laws and Penal Laws were compilations, not enacted by the legislature. These laws were in general continued in force by Congress with certain exceptions and modifications. See §§ 6, 7 of the Organic Act. See also, as to continuation of Hawaiian laws, notes to other sections of the Organic Act, and to Joint Resolution of Annexation, RLH 1955, page 13.
Cited in Ex parte Wilder's S.S. Co., 183 U.S. 545, 22 S. Ct. 225, 46 L. Ed. 321 (1902); United States v. Yii, 3 U.S.D.C. Haw. 87 (1906); Cooke v. Thayer, 22 Haw. 247 (1914); Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, 58 S. Ct. 543, 82 L. Ed. 748 (1938); Inter-Island Steam Nav. Co. v. Hawaii, 305 U.S. 306, 59 S. Ct. 202, 83 L. Ed. 189 (1938); Bishop v. Kalua, 36 Haw. 164 (1942); Zimmerman v. Poindexter, 78 F. Supp. 421 (D. Haw. 1947); Kam Koon Wan v. E.E. Black, Ltd., 75 F. Supp. 553 (D. Haw. 1948); Reinecke v. Loper, 77 F. Supp. 333 (D. Haw. 1948); Dyer v. Abe, 138 F. Supp. 220 (D. Haw. 1956); United States v. Coins, 144 F. Supp. 740 (D. Haw. 1956); United States v. Gertz, 249 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1957); O'Daniel v. Inter-Island Resorts, Ltd., 46 Haw. 197, 377 P.2d 609 (1962); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 86 S. Ct. 1286, 16 L. Ed. 2d 376 (1966); Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 441 F. Supp. 559 (D. Haw. 1977).
University of Hawaii Law Review. Comment, State-Federal Jurisdictional Conflict over the Internal Waters and Submerged Lands of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 4 U. Haw. L. Rev. 139 (1982).
Historical note. - The Hawaiian group consists of the following islands: Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Niihau, Kahoolawe, Molokini, Lehua, Kaula, Nihoa, Necker, Laysan, Gardiner, Lisiansky, Ocean, French Frigates Shoal, Palmyra, Brooks Shoal, Pearl and Hermes Reef, Gambia Shoal and Dowsett and Maro Reef. The first nineteen were listed in the Commission report transmitted to Congress by the message of the President, Senate Doc. 16, 55th Congress, 3d Session, 1898. U.S. Misc. Pub. 1898.
It has been a question whether Midway was acquired by Hawaii on July 5, 1859, and so is a part of the Territory, or was acquired by the United States independently on August 28, 1867; the latter was assumed in 182 U.S. 304. See the 1933 report of the Hawaiian Historical Society, paper read by P. C. Morris, Dec. 14, 1933. It was assumed by Congress that Midway was not part of the Territory in the Act of August 13, 1940, c. 662, 54 Stat. 784, extending jurisdiction of United States District Court for Hawaii to include Midway Islands, also Wake, Johnston, Sand, and Jarvis Islands.
Territorial jurisdiction includes the military and naval reservations within the exterior boundaries of the Territory.
By the Act of April 19, 1930, the Hawaii National Park was removed from territorial jurisdiction except for certain purposes therein stated.
For discussion of title to Palmyra Island, see United States v. Fullard-Leo, 133 F.2d 743 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 748, 63 S. Ct. 1157, 87 L. Ed. 1703 (1943); United States v. Fullard-Leo, 156 F.2d 756 (9th Cir. 1946), aff 'd, 331 U.S. 256, 67 S. Ct. 1287, 91 L. Ed. 1474 (1947).
Cited in In re Loucks, 13 Haw. 17 (1900); Ex parte Wilder's S.S. Co., 183 U.S. 545, 22 S. Ct. 225, 46 L. Ed. 321 (1902); Bishop v. Mahiko, 35 Haw. 608 (1940); Civil Aeronautics Bd. v. Island Airlines, 235 F. Supp. 990 (D. Haw. 1964).
Historical note. - By this Act Hawaii acquired the status of an incorporated Territory and became an integral part of the United States.
On the status of Hawaii between annexation and the establishment of territorial government, see note to Joint Resolution of Annexation, RLH 1955, page 13.
Cited in In re Loucks, 13 Haw. 17 (1900).
Historical note. - This section was supplemented by the Act of July 2, 1932, 47 Stat. 571, amended by the Act of July 1, 1940, 54 Stat. 707, providing that for purposes of the Act of Sept. 22, 1922, 46 Stat. 1511, women born in Hawaii prior to June 14, 1900, were deemed U.S. citizens at birth. But the Act of Sept. 22, 1922 was repealed by the Act of Oct. 14, 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, which in turn was repealed by the Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 166 (the McCarran-Walter Act), and the present provisions are contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1435(a).
Under art. 17, § 1, of the Const. of 1894 (adapted from the 14th Am. of the U.S. Const.) all persons born or naturalized in the Hawaiian islands and subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Hawaii were citizens thereof. Between 1842 and 1892, 731 Chinese persons and three Japanese persons were naturalized in Hawaii.
The secretary of Hawaii may issue to persons born in Hawaii certificates of Hawaiian birth, which are prima facie evidence.
See §§ 338-41 to 44. See also former law: L. 1905, c. 64; am. L. 1907, c. 79; rep. L. 1909, c. 15; R.L. 1915, p. 1487; R.L. 1925, c. 21; R.L. 1935, c. 247. See also §§ 100 and 101 of the Organic Act. Also see the note to Joint Resolution of annexation, RLH 1955, page 13.
Citizenship extended to persons born in Hawaiian Islands. - A person born in the Hawaiian Islands of British parents domiciled in this country is subject to the jurisdiction of this country and is a Hawaiian subject or citizen. In re Macfarlane, 11 Haw. 166 (1897).
The framers of the Act of Congress providing a government for the Territory of Hawaii approved April 30, 1900, intended to refer to the geographical limits of the Hawaiian Islands rather than to any political conditions existing therein; and that the Hawaiian and American citizenship was to be extended to all persons born in the Islands, excepting only those born of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence by a fiction of public law is regarded as the place of their own country. United States v. Sai, 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 118 (1901).
The fact that two Chinese persons were born in the Hawaiian Islands while the same was a monarchy known as the Kingdom of Hawaii did not deprive them of their status as American citizens, it being proven that they were born in the Hawaiian Islands, sons of a domiciled Chinese laborer, in view of the provisions of Art. 17, § 1, of the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii, and of the provisions of this section of the Act of Congress, approved April 30, 1900, to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii, that all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, were declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii. United States v. Sai, 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 118 (1901).
Naturalization. - The circuit courts of the Territory had power to naturalize. Territory of Haw. v. Kaizo, 17 Haw. 295, aff 'd, 18 Haw. 28 (1906), aff 'd, 211 U.S. 146, 29 S. Ct. 41, 53 L. Ed. 125 (1908).
Hawaiian citizenship by naturalization did not extend to the nonresident minor children of the persons so naturalized, nor were such children, while still nonresident, made citizens of the United States by the provision contained in this section. In re Ko, 3 U.S.D.C. Haw. 623 (1910).
Deportation proceedings. - See United States v. Yong, 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 104 (1901).
Cited in In re Loucks, 13 Haw. 17 (1900); Ex parte Ah Oi, 13 Haw. 534 (1901); In re Sai, 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 234 (1902); United States v. Dang Mew Wan Lum, 88 F.2d 88 (9th Cir. 1937); United States v. Rodiek, 117 F.2d 588 (2nd Cir. 1941); Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles, 236 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1956).
That the Constitution, and, except as otherwise provided, all the laws of the United States, including laws carrying general appropriations, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States; Provided, That sections 1841 to 1891, inclusive, 1910 and 1912, of the Revised Statutes, and the amendments thereto, and an act entitled "An act to prohibit the passage of local or special laws in the Territories of the United States, to limit Territorial indebtedness, and for other purposes," approved July 30, 1886, and the amendments thereto, shall not apply to Hawaii. Annotations
[Am May 27, 1910, c 258, § 1, 36 Stat 443; April 12, 1930, c 136, 46 Stat 160; June 6, 1932, c 209, § 116(b), 47 Stat 205]
Historical note. - Federal liquor prohibition laws in effect in Hawaii were repealed by the Act of Mar. 26, 1934, c. 88, 48 Stat. 467. For application of other provisions of the federal Constitution and laws to Hawaii, see note to Joint Resolution of Annexation, RLH 1955, page 13.
Section made federal law applicable in Hawaii. - This section provides that the Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within Hawaii as elsewhere in the United States, with certain exceptions. United States v. Kee, 3 U.S.D.C. Haw. 262 (1908).
This section makes effective in the Territory all the laws of the United States which are not locally applicable, saving only certain specified statutes. The special exceptions strengthen the general application of this statutory rule. United States v. Thurston, 4 U.S.D.C. Haw. 1 (1911).
A territory must be considered in the same category as a state, and the Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution is applicable to such territory. Inter-Island Steam Nav. Co. v. Territory of Haw., 96 F.2d 412 (9th Cir.), aff 'd, 305 U.S. 306, 59 S. Ct. 202, 83 L. Ed. 189 (1938).
Where a territory is incorporated into the United States (as in the case of the Territory of Hawaii) the federal Constitution applies and becomes operative in such territory. Territory of Haw. v. Yoshimura, 35 Haw. 324 (1940).
This section guarantees the fundamental rights of the Constitution to territorial citizens; it involves a national policy, the benefits of which the United States has accorded Hawaii. This section is a law giving rise to original jurisdiction of a United States district court, and pursuant to it, the court may adjudicate plaintiff's claims for the equal protection of the law arising from a statute of the United States. Dyer v. Abe, 138 F. Supp. 220 (D. Haw. 1956), rev'd on other grounds, 256 F.2d 728 (9th Cir. 1958).
The equal protection of the law is guaranteed by the Organic Act of Hawaii. It is thus unnecessary to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies directly to a territory; its protection to individual citizens does apply. Dyer v. Abe, 138 F. Supp. 220 (D. Haw. 1956), rev'd on other grounds, 256 F.2d 728 (9th Cir. 1958).
Fundamental law of territory. - The Organic Act passed by Congress for the government of a territory, and under which the territorial government is organized, must be taken as the fundamental law of the territory; and all territorial legislative assemblies derive their force and validity from such organic acts. Achi v. Kapiolani Estate, Ltd., 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 86 (1901).
Cited in In re Loucks, 13 Haw. 17 (1900); In re Lin ex rel. Chong, 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 44 (1900); Ex parte Ah Oi, 13 Haw. 534 (1901); Pringle v. Hilo Mercantile Co., 13 Haw. 705 (1901); Ex parte Wilder's S.S. Co., 183 U.S. 545, 22 S. Ct. 225, 46 L. Ed. 321 (1902); Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197, 23 S. Ct. 787, 47 L. Ed. 1016 (1903); United States v. Moore, 3 U.S.D.C. Haw. 66 (1906); Robinson v. Baldwin, 19 Haw. 9 (1908); Territory of Haw. v. Martin, 19 Haw. 201 (1908); United States v. Perez, 3 U.S.D.C. Haw. 295 (1908); Wynne v. United States, 217 U.S. 234, 30 S. Ct. 447, 54 L. Ed. 748 (1910); United States v. Ishibashyi, 3 U.S.D.C. Haw. 517 (1910); Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 66 S. Ct. 606, 90 L. Ed. 688 (1946); United States v. Fullard-Leo, 331 U.S. 256, 67 S. Ct. 1287, 91 L. Ed. 1474 (1947); Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 441 F. Supp. 559 (D. Haw. 1977).
Hawaii Bar Journal. Article, Hawaii's Legal System: A Brief Survey, 1 Haw. B.J. (March 1963, at 1).
Historical note. - As to the meaning of "laws of Hawaii," see § 1 of the Organic Act and the note thereunder.
Pursuant to § 73(c) of the Organic Act, certain land laws are not subject to repeal or amendment by legislature without the approval of Congress.
Organic Act as fundamental law of territory. - The Organic Act passed by Congress for the government of a territory, and under which the territorial government is organized, must be taken as the fundamental law of the territory; and all territorial legislative assemblies derive their force and validity from such Organic Acts. Achi v. Kapiolani Estate, Ltd., 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 86 (1901).
Original Hawaiian statute defining manslaughter was not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States or provisions of the Organic Act, and was one of the laws continued in force pursuant to § 6 of the Organic Act. Territory of Haw. v. Braly, 29 Haw. 7 (1926).
Unanimity of verdicts is essential under provisions of the Organic Act, but it may be waived, and it is waived by a request for an instruction, which is given, that a verdict may be rendered by nine jurors. Pringle v. Hilo Mercantile Co., 13 Haw. 705 (1901).
Hawaiian laws not inconsistent with U.S. Constitution or Act remain in effect until changed. - This section, providing that the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States or the provisions of the Organic Act should continue in force, subject to repeal or amendment by the legislature of Hawaii or the Congress of the United States, was significant of the complete recognition by the United States of the validity of such laws under the new status and of the agreement for their continuance until subject to further legislation relating to them either by Congress or by the Hawaiian legislature. United States v. Haleakala Ranch Co., 3 U.S.D.C. Haw. 299 (1908).
Former statute relating to fornication held not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Organic Act or the United States Constitution. Territory of Haw. v. Martin, 19 Haw. 201 (1908).
Corporation chartered by Hawaiian monarchy not same as corporation organized by Congress and not forbidden from making contribution to political offices. - An act of Congress forbidding any national bank or any corporation organized by authority of any laws of Congress from making a money contribution in connection with an election to political office was not applicable to a corporation chartered by the government of the Hawaiian monarchy. United States v. Haleakala Ranch Co., 3 U.S.D.C. Haw. 299 (1908).
U. S. District Court for District of Hawaii had jurisdiction of an assault committed upon military reservation in the Territory of Hawaii. United States v. Motohara, 4 U.S.D.C. Haw. 62 (1911).
The district court had jurisdiction of an assault and battery committed by a commander of the United States Navy on the naval reservation in Honolulu. Territory v. Carter, 19 Haw. 198 (1908).
Right of appeal. - Although without statutory authority, the right of appeal to the circuit court for mitigation of sentence from district magistrates, and on exercise thereof the power of the circuit court to mitigate an excessive sentence of the district magistrate, were fixed by Hawaiian judicial precedent within the meaning of § 1-1, and therefore had the force of a statutory right and power under the laws of Hawaii within the meaning of this section. In re Marteles, 38 Haw. 479 (1950).
Cited in Coffield v. Territory of Haw., 13 Haw. 478 (1901); Tomikawa v. Gama, 14 Haw. 431 (1902); Ex parte Wilder's S.S. Co., 183 U.S. 545, 22 S. Ct. 225, 46 L. Ed. 321 (1902); The Schooner Robert Lewers Co. v. Kekauoha, 114 Fed. 849 (9th Cir. 1902); In re Austin, 15 Haw. 114 (1903); In re Contested Election, 15 Haw. 323 (1903); Carter v. Gear, 197 U.S. 348, 25 S. Ct. 491, 49 L. Ed. 787 (1905); Kealoha v. Castle, 112 U.S. 238, 5 S. Ct. 131, 28 L. Ed. 684 (1884); Wynne v. United States, 217 U.S. 234, 30 S. Ct. 447, 54 L. Ed. 748 (1910); Territory of Haw. v. Ota, 36 Haw. 80 (1942); State v. Tin Yan, 44 Haw. 370, 355 P.2d 25 (1960); Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 441 F. Supp. 559 (D. Haw. 1977).
Penal Laws: Chapter six, Treason; sections sixty-five to sixty-seven, inclusive, Foot binding; chapter seventeen, Violation of postal laws; section three hundred and fourteen, Blasphemy; sections three hundred and seventy-one to three hundred and seventy-two, inclusive, Vagrants; sections four hundred and eleven to four hundred and thirteen, inclusive, Manufacture of liquors; chapter forty-three, Offenses on the high seas and other waters; sections five hundred and ninety-five and six hundred and two to six hundred and five, inclusive, Jurisdiction; section six hundred and twenty-three, Procedure; sections seven hundred and seven hundred and one, Imports; section seven hundred and fifteen, Auction license; section seven hundred and forty-five, Commercial travelers; sections seven hundred and forty-eight to seven hundred and fifty-five, inclusive, Firearms; sections seven hundred and ninety-six to eight hundred and nine, inclusive, Coasting trade; sections eight hundred and eleven and eight hundred and twelve, Peddling foreign goods; sections eight hundred and thirteen to eight hundred and fifteen, inclusive, Importation of livestock; section eight hundred and nineteen, Imports; sections eight hundred and eighty-six to nine hundred and six, inclusive, Quarantine; section eleven hundred and thirty-seven, Consuls and consular agents; chapter sixty-seven, Whale ships; sections eleven hundred and forty-five to eleven hundred and seventy-nine, inclusive, and twelve hundred and four to twelve hundred and nine, inclusive, Arrival, entry and departure of vessels; chapters sixty-nine to seventy-six, inclusive, Navigation and other matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States; sections thirteen hundred and forty-seven and thirteen hundred and forty-eight, Fraudulent exportation; chapter seventy-eight, Masters and servants; chapter ninety-three, Immigration; sections sixteen hundred and one, sixteen hundred and eight, and sixteen hundred and twelve, Agriculture and forestry; chapter ninety-six, Seditious offenses; and chapter ninety-nine, Sailing regulations.
Session Laws: Act fifteen, Elections; Act twenty-six, Duties; Act twenty-seven, Exemptions from duties; Act thirty-two, Registry of vessels; section four of Act thirty-eight, Importation of livestock; Act forty-eight, Pacific cable; Act sixty-five, Consolidation of public debt; Act sixty-six, Ports of entry; and Act sixty-eight, Chinese immigration. Annotations
Organic Act is fundamental law of territory. - The Organic Act passed by Congress for the government of a territory, and under which the territorial government is organized, must be taken as the fundamental law of the territory; and all territorial legislative assemblies derive their force and validity from such Organic Acts. Achi v. Kapiolani Estate, Ltd., 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 86 (1901).
Writ of ne exeat was not available, in an action of assumpsit, to prevent a defendant from going away from the Territory or to compel him to give security for the payment of the judgment that might be recovered. The execution of the writ would subject the defendant to imprisonment for debt, contrary to the provisions of the Organic Act. Oahu Lumber & Bldg. Co. v. Ding Sing, 15 Haw. 412 (1904).
Cited in Ex parte Wilder's S.S. Co., 183 U.S. 545, 22 S. Ct. 225, 46 L. Ed. 321 (1902); Territory of Haw. v. Ng Kow, 15 Haw. 602 (1904); Carter v. Gear, 197 U.S. 348, 25 S. Ct. 491 (1905); Territory of Haw. v. Martin, 19 Haw. 201 (1908); Wynne v. United States, 217 U.S. 234, 30 S. Ct. 447, 54 L. Ed. 748 (1910); Territory of Haw. v. Ota, 36 Haw. 80 (1942); State v. Jones, 45 Haw. 247, 365 P.2d 460 (1961); Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 441 F. Supp. 559 (D. Haw. 1977).
Cited in Fugihara Oriemon v. Territory of Haw., 13 Haw. 413 (1901); In re Austin, 15 Haw. 114 (1903); Ninomiya v. Kepoikai, 15 Haw. 273 (1903).
Here Ends Part 1 of the Organic Act Click here for Part 2
Site hosted by MauiMacMedic.com