Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 208, 4 June 1891 — UNEQUAL BEFORE THE LAW. [ARTICLE]

Help Learn more about this Article Text

UNEQUAL BEFORE THE LAW.

lt was splemuly adjudieated by the Supreme Court that any law that discriminates openly or coyertlv against any class or residents or subjects is unconstitutional and void. This was in the cor.stitution but it had to be adopted by the Court before it could be considered settled an operative law ©f the land. * This was done in the cāse of the statute requiring licenses of the government to keep account in Eng3ish and Native, it being a beneficient scheme to give emp!oyment to a large number of needy book keepers. The court hekl that 4 this law bore uneqnally on the class of merchants who did not un<lerstand the said languages.

The justice of this cannot be t!oubted. The law should be no respecter of persons. Justice should weigh men's differences with blindfolded eyes. Class legislation is an aboinination and the worst of tyranny. The law ought to be the same for every man. What a storm of opposition it would raise if it were proposed to pass lawa against Gertnans or Portuguese or Englisbmen, or to exempt all American »issinnaries from the operation of the enminal laws.

Class legislation is undoubtedly C bad, but the system that is in operation here in Hawaii is a thousaud times worse. It is as bad as it possibly ean be. The power is put iiito the hands of one individaal and his satalites to say when and upon 'whom the laws shali operate. According to his fancy he ean point out any class upon whom the laws shall press, and designate any other class who shall be privileged to break the law. Also he ean use his discretion in individual cases. If a man commits murder he may go free and unpunished. if the At-torney-Generars department wills it. If it is desired to persecute an innocent person equally effieacious means are at hand. He may be thrown in jail and his trial delayed as long as desirable.

One of the most ingenious inventions of the great Catholic Church, was ihe of indulgencies. The cburch had long claimed the power to forgive sins for a consideration, and had servants all over Europe drjving a profitable trade in the forgiving busitiess, just as the henehmen of the attorney generars department are said to be doing now in Hawaii nei. At length h©ly war, murdering and plundering expeditions that bad not turn* ed out well, required more cash. In that crisis the plan was invented of forgiving sins in advance. selling parchment documentB that certified that the said party of the aecond part was absolved, re3i«ved. excused, and forgiven for any and all BinB, crimeB. misdemeanors. pieeaeiilloe. irregu'arities, and acts of moral obliquity, whieh he inight do, comniit or neg]«*ct to do in the next year, or other term agrerd upon. All of whieh w»s B(gu»d seal< d by the head of the

church. With one, of these documentd in his pocket and faith in hie heart a man could sin with more than ordinary satisfaction.

The infamous Tetzel and his subordiriate» peddled these indulgencie& Europe and realizecl immense sums of money. So are iiidulgencies in the past and present given to importers of ©piuni. to garnbling 'dens, to illicit liquor trafie, to l>ribe takers and every sort of law breaking that eaii be made a profitable business of. We know and h'ave pointed. out dozens of examples of this sort on the Island of Hawaii, We hear that the liquor dealers in the subufbs of Honolulu have "permissioa" to pursue their »vnlawful traffic at)d the open manner of doing the businese confirme the belief. We haye r also evidence of a very recent and very flagrant case of this kind th'at we reserve for better proof for another occasion. But the worst result of this state of things is that government officers cannot be prosecuted or corruption in office, •jobberv, bribery, &c. The criminal law cannot take hokl of them; they are safe and arrogant. There is, indeed, a dowbtful and not fully satisfactōry remedy in the way of a civil suit by the tax-payers for money lost the treasury. An aetion of this nature has neiver been brought in our courts, it exists only in theory, and it is quite probable that the court would not entertain such a suit. We now contemplate bringing a test case to see if the court thinks that any one ean be made responsible for money as good as taken unlawfully from the Treasury. But the remedy is simple for all this wrong and lies with the legislature. Let an act be passed, enabling any citizen to maintain a criminal action and recover thē fine that would provide a certain active and effectual remedy for the abuse of indulgencies.