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 ]

3859
two representatives.   It is a constitutional provision; it is a right which they received 
from their ancestors, and the reason why the representation is not changed in 
Connecticut to-day is as I have stated.   The city of New Haven has 125,000 
population, and the city of Hartford probably 80,000, but they are only entitled to two 
representatives under the constitution. Now. we should not care to change places with 
the other towns in the State.   New Haven has grown, and Hartford has grown, and 
yet they have only their two representatives.   Now, when an attempt is made to 
amend the constitution, or if an amendment is offered to the constitution, the little 
towns largely outnumber the large towns, and the little towns are jealous of their 
rights, for which 1 do not blame them, and they do not propose to give to the cities 
any more representation in the general assembly than they originally had, to wit. two 
from each town, and only two.   That is the situation in Connecticut, and 1 thought 
it was but right that I should have you understand our position, and bow we have come 
into the situation that we are in, and how it is impossible, in my judgment, to change 
that system of representation. Yet the good old State of Connecticut has a history that 
she may well be proud of.   Connecticut was the first State to give civil liberty to 
man by a written constitution.   The Newman barn constitution at New Haven, and 
the Hartford. Windsor, and Wethersfleld constitution will remain for all time a 
monument to the judgment, the wisdom, and the patriotism of the early settlers of 
Connecticut.    [Great applause.] Mr. KNOX.   I ask for a vote. The CHAIRMAN.   
The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut. The 
amendment was rejected. The Clerk read as follows:
FEDERAL COURT.
Sec. 87.  That a judicial district court of the United States is established for the 
Territory of Hawaii, to be called the district of Hawaii, which shall be 
included
in the ninth judicial circuit of the United States.  The President of 
the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the 
United States, shall appoint a district judge, a district attorney, and a mar-
shall of the United States for the said district.  The district court for the said 
district shall have, in addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of district courts
of the United States, jurisdiction of all cases congnizable in a circuit court,
and shall proceed therein to the same manner as a circuit court.  The laws of 
the United States, relating to appeals, writs of error, removal of causes,
and other matters and proceedings as between the courts of the United
States and the courts of the several States shall govern in such matters and
proceedings as between the courts of the United States and the courts of the 
Territory of Hawaii.  Regular terms of said courts shall be held at Honolulu 
on the second Monday in April and October and at Hilo on the last 
Wednesday in January of each year; and special terms may be held at such 
times and places in said district as the said judge may deem expedient.  
Mr. LANE.   Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to that section which I wish to offer. 
The CHAIRMAN.   The gentleman from Iowa offers an amendment which the Clerk 
will report. The Clerk read as follows:
Section 87, page 91, line 7, add the following: "The said district judge shall 
appoint a clerk for said court at a salary of $3,000 per annum, and shall appoint 
a reporter of said court at a salary of $1,200 per annum."
The amendment was agreed to. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana.   I offer the amendment 
which I Bend to the Clerk's desk. The CHAIRMAN.   The gentleman from  Indiana 
offers an amendment which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows: Strike out 
section 87 and insert the following:
"FEDERAL COURT. "That there shall be established in said Territory a district 
court to consist of one judge, who shall reside therein and be called the 
district judge. The President of the United States, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, shall appoint a district judge, a district attorney, and a 
marshal of the United States for the said district, and said judge, attorney, and 
marshal shall hold office for six years unless sooner removed by the President.   
Said court shall have, in addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of district courts 
of the United States, jurisdiction of all cases cognizable in a circuit court of the 
United States, and shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit 
court, and said judge shall have and exercise in the Territory of Hawaii all the 
powers conferred by the laws of the United States upon the judges of district 
and circuit courts of the United States.   Writs of error and appeals from said 
district court shall be had and allowed to the circuit court of appeals in the 
Ninth judicial circuit in the same manner as writs of error and appeals are 
allowed from circuit courts to circuit courts of appeals as provided by law. 
and the laws of the United States relating to juries and jury trials shall be 
applicable to said district court.   The laws of the United States relating to 
appeals, writs of error, removal of causes, and other matters and proceedings 
as between the courts of the United States and the courts of the several States 
shall govern in such matters and proceedings as between the courts of the 
United States and the courts of the Territory of Hawaii.   Regular terms of said 
court shall be held at Honolulu on the second Monday in April and October 
and at Hilo on the lust Wednesday in January of each year: and special terms 
may be held at such times and places in said district as the said judge may deem 
expedient."
Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana.   I will state to the chairman of the committee and to the 
members of the House that this provision is a Senate provision.   I desire to call the 
attention of members to the further fact that by the section read in the House bill no 
term is fixed for the judge, the marshal, or the district attorney, nor is any reference 
made as to how long they shall hold.

Mr. KNOX.   The court established by the House bill is a constitutional court, and the 
terms of its officers are regulated by law - the judge for life and the marshal for four 
years. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana.   The Senate provision is to limit the terms of these 
three officers to six years.   I think that accords with the vote of the House the other day 
in limiting the terms of the circuit judges to four years    There has been a theory 
that these officers ought to hold for a long time.   In my judgment, we ought to limit the 
time.   The amendment I offer, which is a Senate provision, limits the term of each of these 
officers to six years. The Senate provision also says that they shall reside in the Territory.   
That provision is absent in the section that I desire to have stricken out. This provision 
was well considered by the Senate, and in my judgment, after carefully looking over 
both sections, the Senate provision which I have offered as an amendment is the better 
of the two. Mr. KNOX.   Mr. Chairman, the gentleman does not seem to take in the 
broad distinction which there is in the bill of the House from that of the Senate bill.   He 
picks out different items without considering the broad distinction.   The Senate creates a 
legislative court under the general power of the Constitution that Congress has authority 
to regulate and provide for the Territory and other property of the United States.   If I 
may be permitted to refer to the discussion in the Senate, it turned, not upon the 
wisdom or desirability of a Federal court, but upon the constitutional power of 
Congress to create a Federal court in a Territory.   Now, this provides for a Federal 
court, a constitutional court.   If it is a constitutional court, then the tenure of its 
officers is regulated by the Constitution, and there is no power in this House to change 
it.   If, on the other band, it is changed and made a legislative court, then, of course, 
all its provisions are entirely within the jurisdiction of the House to change.  Now, 
the desirability of establishing a constitutional court is for the purpose of entirely 
separating the local and Territorial litigation from the Federal litigation.  We make a 
Federal court having strictly Federal jurisdiction, from which appeals and writs 
of error lie to the Supreme Court and circuit court of appeals. The Senate, on the other hand, 
creates a district court with some Federal jurisdiction, at the same time providing that 
appeals and writs of error from the supreme court of the Territory shall lie to the 
Ninth judicial circuit.  We have there a court of mixed jurisdiction, from 
which confusion will inevitably result.   A great deal of time was spent upon the 
consideration of this provision and, the House provision was unanimously agreed 
to by the com-
mittee. 
Let me suggest that we will have trouble if we legislate according to the 
gentleman's prevision.   Suppose a judge is sick and that he has to go away: 
perhaps the President would not like to remove him, and. not being a 
constitutional court, the judge of the district of California could not go 
there to preside.   I think the only fear that there was when this question was 
first mooted among lawyers as to Hawaii courts and the establishment of a 
Federal court in the Territory has passed away upon reflection and 
consultation, and it is for the benefit of Hawaii as a Territory that this 
jurisdiction be kept separate, and that they have a regular Federal court of 
Hawaii. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana.   The suggestion of the amendment is that 
they might have an appeal to the Ninth or California district. Mr. KNOX.   
Of course it does, and if that court is established they may appeal from the 
supreme court of the Territory, because you have a double jurisdiction.   It is our 
purpose to entirely separate them: and I would say to the gentleman that if 
there is any doubt about the constitutionality of this question in conference, 
why, then, of course, a special provision will be adopted.   I wish that the 
gentleman would not offer the amendment. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana.   
Upon the suggestion that this matter will go into conference anyway. I will 
not insist upon it. The CHAIRMAN.   The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. 
LANE.   What about my amendment? The CHAIRMAN.   It is adopted. The 
Clerk read as follows: SEC. 92. That the public property ceded and transferred to the 
United States by the republic of Hawaii under the joint resolution of annexation, approved 
July 7, 1898, shall be and remain in the possession, use. and control of the government of the 
Territory of Hawaii, and shall be maintained, managed, and cared for by it. at its own 
expense, until otherwise provided for by Congress, or taken for the uses and purposes of the 
United States by direction of the President or of the governor of Hawaii.
Mr. KNOX.   Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as 
follows: On page 93, section 92, line 2, add the following: "And all moneys in the 
Hawaiian treasury and all the revenues and other property acquired by the 
republic of Hawaii since said cession shall be and remain the property of the 
Territory of Hawaii."
The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 93. That the following officers shall receive the following annual salaries, to be 
paid by the United States: The governor, $5,000; the secretary of

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)  |  library@hawaii.edu