|
|
Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 190 U.S. 186, click here.
Hawaii v. Mankichi No. 219 Argued March 4-5, 1903 Decided June 1, 1903 190 U.S. 197
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII
Syllabus
In interpreting a statute, the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; a thing may be within the letter of the statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. Smythe v. Fisk, 23 Wall. 374. In inserting in the Resolution of July 7, 1898, annexing Hawaii, a provision that municipal legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States should remain in force until Congress otherwise determined, Congress did not intend to impose upon the islands every clause of the Constitution, and to nullify convictions and verdicts which might, before the legislature could act, be rendered in accordance with existing legislation of the islands but not in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, nor was such the intention of Hawaii in surrendering its autonomy.
The conviction of one who, between August 12, 1898, and June 14, 1900, was tried on information and convicted by a jury not unanimous, in accordance with legislation of the Republic of Hawaii existing at the time of the annexation, is legal notwithstanding it is not in compliance with the provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution.
This was a petition by Mankichi for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his release from the Oahu convict prison, where he is confined upon conviction for manslaughter, in alleged violation of the Constitution, in that he was tried upon an indictment not found by a grand jury, and convicted by the verdict of nine out of twelve jurors, the other three dissenting from the verdict.
Following the usual course of procedure in the Republic of Hawaii prior to its incorporation as a territory of the United States, the prisoner was tried upon an indictment much in the form of an information at common law, by the Attorney General, and indorsed "a true bill, found this fourth day of May, A.D. 1899. A. Perry, first judge of the circuit court," etc.
From an order of the United States District Court discharging the prisoner, the Attorney General of the territory appealed to this Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903) in 190 U.S. 197 190 U.S. 198–190 U.S. 209. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=RLCPK3L59IGKBIY.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), in 190 U.S. 197, pp. 190 U.S. 198–190 U.S. 209. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=RLCPK3L59IGKBIY.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903). cited in 1903, 190 U.S. 197, pp.190 U.S. 198–190 U.S. 209. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=RLCPK3L59IGKBIY.
|