University of Hawaii at Manoa Library

Home: The Annexation Of Hawaii: A Collection Of Document

Hawaii Organic Act: Congressional debates on Hawaii Organic Act

[ Previous Page ] -- [ View PDF ] -- [ View in MS Word ] -- [ Next Page ]

court and of the circuit courts. If we appoint the officers and appoint those 
judges, of course we have got to provide the salaries, because they become then 
officers of the United States Government. No provision is made in the bill, or none 
has been suggested, I believe, in regard to this point of difficulty; and I will 
suggest to the Senator from Connecticut, if his amendment shall prevail, that 
he bring in some provision for the purpose of ascertaining and declaring what 
the salaries of those judges shall be. The laws of Hawaii fix those salaries, and 
the legislature has the power, not while they are in office, but in respect to future 
legislation, to reduce them if it chooses to do so, or to increase them.
The government of Hawaii has maintained itself, and will continue to 
maintain itself, upon the basis of the expenditures that are provided for in this 
bill. The people of Hawaii, of course, ought not to object to the Government of 
the United States taking these burdens off of their hands, but they are quite 
willing to retain them, if they can have the privilege, which I think every 
community ought to be accorded, of having some voice in the selection of their 
judicial officers.
The other day, when I was discussing this subject, I adverted to the proposition, 
which I think is an entirely correct one, that a judicial office is as much an 
office to be conferred with respect to the will of the people in a Territory or a 
State as any other office. If we break away from the system that is 
recommended here and assume the appointment of those officers by the 
Government of the United States, why not go further and have the President of 
the United States appoint all the executive officers of that Territory, and why 
not require the President to appoint the legislative officers also? Why should we 
retain the feature of representation in respect of the legislative and executive 
officers of that Territory, and abandon that feature in respect of the election of the 
judicial officers? The only argument that I have heard in that direction is that 
we have not heretofore done it.
Well, Mr. President, we have heretofore permitted in a very large degree 
the people of the Territories, through their legislature or governor, or by 
election, to choose their judicial officers; and this bill, as it will be left after the 
amendment of the Senator from Connecticut has been put upon it, if it shall be 
adopted, will leave the district judges of the islands under the power of ap-
pointment of the governor and confirmation by the senate. These district judges 
have a more important jurisdiction, so far as the administration of justice is 
concerned, than the judges of the circuit courts or of the supreme court. There is 
united in the jurisdiction of the district judges that which belongs ordinarily in 
the United States to the justice of the peace. They also have other and very 
important powers relating, for instance, to the probate of wills and the 
administration of estates. A number of important powers are left in the hands 
of the judges of the district courts. These powers reach the people in every 
neighborhood in Hawaii. The people in the different judicial districts naturally 
look to those judges as the conservators of the peace and the administrators of 
justice in respect of cases that do not involve certain very important 
constitutional or other questions or very large amounts of money and property.
    So, if we commence this work of transferring the appointing power of the 
judges into the hands of the President f the United States, we ought to continue 
it, to be consistent with ourselves, as to the appointment of the judges of the 
district courts. There is, therefore, no logic in the proposition presented by the 
Senator from Connecticut. It is entirely unimportant, entirely illogical, except 
in this respect, that the people of Hawaii have the right, as every other people 
have, to know the judges who are appointed amongst them and over them. No 
country can be described that is in a worse condition than a state where a foreign 
judge is seated in the seat of judgment. A foreign judicial rule is of all things 
the least to be approved, and it is the last thing that the people of any self-
governing community in the United States or in the Territories desire.
I am opposed, Mr. President, to having the political parties in the United 
States choose the judges for Hawaii. In the hands of a President of the United 
States the appointment of a judge in a Territory is a purely political question. 
The present excellent and eminent President of the United States, in whose 
personal integrity and character I have the highest confidence, would hesitate a 
long time before he would confront the politicians of his own party in making a 
selection of a judge for the Territory of Arizona or New Mexico from the 
Democratic party. It would make no difference what the man's qualifications 
might be; it would make no difference what might be the desires of the people 
of the locality; he would make the appointment in every case, as he has done 
and will do in every case, from the political party to which he belongs. I do not 
know what other motive there can be for having this power transferred from 
the governor of a Territory into the hands of the President, unless it may be a 
political motive, a motive to increase the patronage of the party in power at 
this time; and I object to it on that ground, as being unseemly and unjust to the

people of Hawaii. If we intend now to take the offices of Hawaii and make them a 
part of the Presidential patronage, let us take them all, let us take the whole of 
the judges, including the judges of the district courts, also the members of the 
legislature, and all of the members of the executive department of that 
Territorial government.
Mr. President, this bill first received the consideration of five 
commissioners, all of whom agreed in respect of its provisions in this particular 
which I am now discussing, and made their re-port. It then went before the 
Committee on Foreign Relations during the last Congress, and was there 
considered and reported, retaining this provision. At the present session of 
Congress it has again gone before the Committee on Foreign Relations, and 
has been again reported with this feature in it, and now, at a time when the bill is 
about to pass this body, a new contrivance is set up here which is entirely 
disorganizing, and which destroys the scheme of the entire bill as to the 
I beg the attention of what few Senators have consented to linger in this 
body, for the purpose of attending to the public business, for a little while to 
the proposition that this bill contains a new provision in respect of the entire 
judicial establishment of the Territory of Hawaii. The first proposition is that the 
judges, the juries, and those functionaries who exercise judicial power in that 
Territory shall be selected so far as may be possible from the worthy people of 
those islands, people who are capacitated to fill those important places. In that 
view of the subject I do not feel that the committee have strayed away from 
any proper doctrine for the Government of the United States or any of its 
Local self-government is as much included in the administration of justice as 
it is in the election of officers or in the execution of the law, and the principle of 
local self-government, is the one to which this commission and the Committee 
on Foreign Relations have appealed in this case as the basis upon which we predi-
cate the entire frame of this bill.
It has been the custom heretofore-and a very bad custom, indeed-to appoint 
the judges of the Territorial courts for four years, a very short time, during which 
they are strangers to a community; they can scarcely become acquainted with 
its laws or with its people, and when another Administration shall come in those 
judges are removed for political reasons and a new set appointed, so that political 
influence, instead of a high sense of propriety in judicial administration, is that 
which quadrennially invades every Territory of the United States and carries to 
its people a new administrator of justice who is unacquainted with the people 
and with the laws of the Territory in which he presides. That system of itself is 
faulty in principle and it has been very injurious in its administration.
But there are other views of this question; there are other circumstances 
which have been forced upon the attention of Congress hitherto, chiefly by the 
sparsity of an educated and trained population in the Territories which we have 
heretofore organized. Heretofore, up to the present time indeed, except, I 
believe, in the case of Alaska, we have conferred upon what they call the 
United States courts in the Territories-the same courts the Senator from 
Connecticut is now trying to put upon the island of Hawaii-.we have conferred 
upon them the power to enforce the laws of the United States, assuming under 
the decisions of the Supreme Court that Congress as the supreme sovereign 
over the Territories has the right to combine the powers of the State government 
and the powers of the Federal Government in the appointment of judicial officers 
for the Territories. We have conferred upon them the double duty, and sometimes 
the irreconcilable duty, of passing upon questions that arise in the Territories 
themselves, and which concern private interests entirely, combining them with 
questions that arise under the laws of the United States and are entirely 
different in their purposes and in the means of execution from the Territorial or 
local laws. For instance, we have conferred upon those Territorial courts the 
power of admiralty in several cases.
Now, what greater inconsistency can there be than that of a Territorial court 
exercising all; of the local jurisdiction that, be-longs to a State court or county 
court or probate court or criminal court and uniting that with the jurisdiction 
conferred under the laws of the United States upon the district and circuit 
courts in admiralty? How are we to expect to find judges of sufficient breadth 
of learning, sufficient ability to manage these diverse and incongruous conditions? 
We have escaped heretofore for the reason that it has very seldom happened that 
our Territorial courts have been called upon to administer admiralty 
jurisdiction, but I can conceive of nothing more unseemly in legislation to 
provide judicial jurisdiction and officers than to place in the hands, for 
instance, of a circuit judge of the State of Alabama the power to determine and 
execute the laws of the United States in Alabama. If he can not do it properly in 
Alabama, if there are public reasons connected with the harmony of the 
judicial establishment

Return to Top

Terms of Use  |  UH Mānoa  |  UH System  |  Ask Us
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Library  |  2550 McCarthy Mall  |  Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA
808-956-7214 (Reference)  |  808-956-7203 (Circulation)  |  808-956-7205 (Administration)
808-956-5968 (fax)  |