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

3860
the Territory, $3,000; the United States district judge, $5,000; the United 
States marshall, $2,000; the United States district attorney, $2,000.   And the 
governor shall receive annually, in addition to his salary, the sum of $500 for 
stationery, postage, and incidentals; also his traveling expenses while absent from 
the capital on official business, and the sum of $2,000 annually for his private 
secretary.
Mr. KNOX.   Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I desire to offer to 
that section. The Clerk read as follows:  On page 98, section 93, in line 6, 
after the word "dollars," add the words "and the chief justice of the supreme court 
of the Territory, $5,500 and associate justices, $5,000."    
The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. Mr. 
ROBINSON of Indiana.   I offer an amendment to follow the last 
amendment   I would like to have the attention of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts to this amendment. The Clerk read as follows:
Add, after the word "judge" of the last amendment, "salaries of the said chief 
justice and associates of the supreme court and the judges of the circuit court, 
as above provided for, shall be paid by the Territory of Hawaii." Mr. 
ROBINSON of Indiana.   That provides that the salaries of the 
United States courts, the stenographer, and clerk shall be paid by 
the United States, and the salaries of the Territorial judges shall be 
paid by the Territory of Hawaii. Mr. KNOX.   What salaries? Mr. 
ROBINSON of Indiana.   The salaries of the Territorial judges 
shall be paid by the Territory. Mr. KNOX.   The circuit court 
judges? Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana.   And the judges of the 
supreme court of Hawaii. Mr. KNOX.   Well The question was 
taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows:
PROCEEDINGS FOR OPENING FISHERIES TO CITIZENS. SEC. 97. That any person 
who claims a private right to any such fishery shall, within two years after the 
taking effect of this act, file his petition in a circuit court of the Territory of 
Hawaii, setting forth his claim to such fishing right, service of which petition 
shall be made upon the attorney-general, who shall conduct the case for the 
Territory, and such case shall be conducted as an ordinary action at law. That if 
such fishing right be established, the governor of the Territory of Hawaii may 
proceed, in a manner provided by law for the condemnation of property for 
public use, to condemn such private right of fishing to the use of the citizens of 
the United States upon making just compensation, which Compensation, when 
lawfully ascertained, shall be paid out of any money in the treasury of the 
Territory of Hawaii not otherwise appropriated. Mr. GILBERT.   Mr. 
Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows:     
Amend section 97 by striking out the last five words, to wit --
Mr. GILBERT.   Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.   There was a break in 
the section.   When I drafted the amendment it occurred to me that 
that was not the section.   What I meant to offer as an amendment is 
this: In line 23, section 97, the last five words are, "an ordinary action 
at law."   I want to insert in lieu of those words " ordinary actions at 
law or in equity."   The committee seem to assume that --     The 
CHAIRMAN.   The gentleman will please suspend and send the 
amendment to the desk.   It will then be reported to the committee. 
The Clerk read as follows:
Amend section 97 by striking out the last five words in line 23, to wit, "an 
ordinary action at law," and substitute these words: "ordinary actions at law or 
in equity."
Mr. GILBERT.   Now, Mr. Chairman, as I said, the amendment is not 
very material, but it ought to be inserted, because the report of the 
committee seems to assume that in settling controversies in the court 
upon questions of that sort it is always a purely legal issue.   
Lawyers know that that sort of question is very frequently by equity 
suit, and it ought to be ordinary actions at law and actions in equity. 
Mr. FINLEY.   Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a 
question? Mr. GILBERT.   Certainly. Mr. FINLEY.   If I understood 
the gentleman's amendment, it is this: If in the settlement of 
property rights condemnation proceedings were necessary, it should 
be in courts of law or in courts of equity.   Is that correct? Mr. 
GILBERT.   It is. Mr. FINLEY.   I would like to ask the gentleman 
this question: Does he not think that the provision of the 
Constitution of the United States providing that no property shall be 
taken for public use without due process of law means a trial by 
jury, and therefore is an action at law? Mr. GILBERT.   In the 
Kentucky practice in a proceeding for the condemnation of property 
for public uses we do not necessarily have a jury.   I think this 
means process by due course of law in the courts.   We do not 
necessarily have a jury trial. Mr. KNOX.   I wish to say that this 
question does not deal with the right but with the method of 
procedure.   Some method of procedure must be provided, in the 
same way as taking lands for a public highway.   When you condemn 
property for a public use

and compensation is made according to a certain method of pro-
cedure, we provide the method by which it shall be done, the same 
as an action at law.   If you include equity in it, then no method of 
procedure is provided. Mr. GILBERT.   The gentleman does not catch 
the force of my amendment.   The bill restricts the procedure to 
common-law cases.   By the terms of your bill the vested right is 
destroyed unless the party can vindicate it in court by a common-law 
issue, by a trial by ordinary proceedings at common law.   Now, by 
this " amendment I merely broaden the rights of the man who is 
claiming the vested right, so that if he can show the courts that he 
has a vested right in the property, as the issue is an equitable one, he 
can maintain it.   His right to property is none the less if it is an 
equitable one, but upon the terms of this bill he is confined to a 
common-law action as contradistinguished from an equitable pro-
ceeding. The CHAIRMAN.   The question is on the amendment 
offered . by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. GILBERT].   The 
amendment was disagreed to. Mr. KNOX.   Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk. The CHAIRMAN.   The 
Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows:
On page 91, section 97, line 84, strike out; the words "the governor" and insert 
in lieu thereof "the attorney-general."
The amendment was agreed to. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana.   Mr. 
Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to return to the amendment 
adopted on the question of salaries of judges being paid by the 
Territory of Hawaii, and ask to add an amendment. Mr. KNOX.   
What section is it? Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana.   I will ask the Clerk 
to read the original amendment. The Clerk read as follows:
The salaries of said chief justice and associate justices of the supreme court 
and the judges of the circuit court as above provided shall be paid by the 
Territory of Hawaii.
Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana.   That was the amendment adopted. Now, 
I propose an amendment to that. The CHAIRMAN.   The gentleman 
asks unanimous consent to return to section 93 for the purpose of 
offering an amendment. Is there objection?   [After a pause.]   The 
Chair hears none. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk 
read as follows:
The judges of the circuit courts, of whom the two judges for the first circuit shall 
each receive an annual salary of $4.0000, and the judges for the second, third, 
fourth, and fifth circuits, respectively, an annual salary of $3,000 each.
The amendment was disagreed to. The Clerk, proceeding with the 
reading of the bill, read as follows:
SEC. 09. That all vessels carrying Hawaiian registers, permanent or temporary, on 
August 12, 1898, together with the following-named vessels claiming Hawaiian 
register, Star of France, Euterpe, Star of Russia, Falls of Clyde, and Wilscott, 
shall be entitled to be registered as American vessels, with the benefits and 
privileges appertaining thereto.
Mr. GROSVENOR.   Mr. Chairman, I want to hear from the 
chairman of the committee some explanation of this section of the 
bill, which, in my judgment, ought not to be in the bill at all, 
because of the superior jurisdiction of the maritime laws of the 
United States over the Territorial law, and particularly because of 
certain dangerous provisions in the bill, or rather the lack of a 
careful provision, in my judgment. Mr. KNOX.   Mr. Chairman, this 
section provides that Hawaiian ships - ships that had a Hawaiian 
register at the time of annexation - are given a United States 
register.   They could have no other register; they would be sailing 
without a flag and without a nationality.   The Hawaiian flag went 
down upon the government building in Hawaii on August 12, 1898. 
and the American flag was raised with proper ceremonies.   No flag 
of Hawaii from that moment means anything, and a vessel sailing 
under a Hawaiian flag is sailing under no flag and no nationality. 
Now. there were brought to the attention of the committee by many 
gentlemen claims that there were other vessels than those which 
had a Hawaiian register that were entitled to a Hawaiian register 
upon this ground; that they had been bought in good faith by 
Hawaiians and intended for a Hawaiian register, but sailing under a 
temporary register, or sea letter, and without any notice of this 
transfer of sovereignty or of the annexation resolution.   Now, if that 
were so. then they should be entitled to the benefits of this register; 
but there were statements made that there were very many vessels that 
would claim the benefit of this American register, and you can see 
that it would be a matter of thousands of dollars in the pockets of 
anyone who could obtain an American register by claiming that they 
were purchased and intended for a Hawaiian register. So the 
committee, fearing the result of a general provision, and the number 
who would claim that they owned vessels intended

Return to Top