Newspaper Page Text
.evening bulletin, Honolulu. h t., Wednesday, July 24 1901
V T '
. .r a
" .-. "
r N i
Published Every Day Except Sunday,
at 210 King Street. Honolulu,
T. II., by the
BULLETIN PUDLI3I11NQ CO.. LTD.
WALLACE R. FAIUUNQTON, ..Editor
Entered nt the I'ost 001 co at Hono
lulu ai fcecond-class matter.
. SUBSCllll'TlON KATES.
. Per,, month, anywhere lu U S....J .75
Per.'year, anywhero In U. S.... S.00
' vPer,year, postpaid, to-clgn 13.00
Payable Invariably In advance.
t Telephone 256
j iPot Office Uox 718
Jl LY 21. 1901,
' 'f&TIRIUMPII OP JUSTiCK.
Thn itotlalnn nf Tiiilrn flr.kri?n IV
xiGearaln the habeas corpus cases
uruugni uciore nini 10 usi iuu entiri
btSllawnllnn Juries during the transi
tion period at last sets Hawaii right In
Ua relation to the Act of Congrcri by
which these Islands were made a part
of the i United States. Judge dear's
Tdcclston Is not a surprise, since It
) would hao been necessary for him to
fjr have performed some high and lofty
' tumbling had he reached any other
conclusion. The spirit and Intent of
' tho New lands Hcsolutlcn Is plain and
fiTto now reach any other decision
fthan that rendered would be nothing
mora or less than an attempt to over
rule the Supremo Court of the United
fk-rThe effort of Attornej Clencral Dol
Jyto'secure un-nppeal would Indicate that
our biased Attorney General believes
that the Supreme Court of Hawaii Is
court'of the land. This local Supreme
Court has shown Itself willing to ren-
J "v$ opinion but the Bulletin Is disposed to
'' HfJ .believe that the "biased" Attorne
.1.11 Oeneral In his enthusiasm really evil
, 4''n Unnecessary reflection on the court
.presided over uy uniei justice irear.
: ' 'At last Justice has been registered
and although It comes three jiars lata,
the "transition" period" remains only
a relic of foolish expediency, an exhi
bition of Judges taking upon them
selves legislative nutliorltj for no utlxr
reason than their supposed fear )' re
sults should the) Intrrprct law ac
cording to its plain meaning. I' Is
probable that the official mouthpiece.)
will tell us of the Jail delivery that will
now take placo but Ic Is better that
'every criminal should be t . t liberty
than one citizen be Inr Is neii inlaw-
f fully. Throughout thr u ic t msltlou
ccrlod the rights rr t' e tu.en were
,' made subservient U i ie demands ol
.so-called exped'ci. ; Citizen. wcr
robbed of the i li n unlaw full im
prisoned bo ause It v as expedient. No
lasi nr-.Kjlng tha.i nnmntloM itscll
Is the record llled toda t'.nt Atitilcai:
principles and Anierlein law rule the
land conic whit vlll. Convenknco wjll
no longer ti'ltun.ih ovci law and the
4 rights rf thn citizen undpr the tonstl.
V-J less gratifyllng than annexation Itself
aVu'-lon will be maintained.
- lam of UBBtTV
(Continued from page 1.)
212 Law, 27, Republic v. Edwards, Id.
?65." This being the question Is as to
ihe reasoning In the Peacock case. Is
the reasoning good? Let us refer to
.tome of the reasoning. The court says
t 'on page 34 of the Peacock case: "The
Joint Resolution annexing these 1st
.ande to the United States, regarded as
an Act of Congress, would In accord
ance with the general rule applicable
lA'to acts of Congress, no other date be
r 'n8 named, take effect upon Us up
proval by tho President, July 7, 1898.
WMhiIab,1 It mit-nncta trt tnL-n ofYont nf
Jonce. It Is in the present tense. The
Islands are "hereby annexed." And
yet no one would seriously contend
Sthat annexation took place oerore me
transfer of sovereignty. August 12.
188," and then on page 33, "It Is thcre-
Ffore conceded that tho Constitution did
.nt tnVa ottppt hprn until at least a
fmonth.apd five days after the Joint
' Resolution 'was In tho present tense
and although by its terms no further
act such as a formal transfer of pos
'session or sovereignty" was required
, ,to "complete annexation." Despite,
however, the fact that tho Hawaiian
Supreme Court said that "no one would
seriously contend that annexation took
place before the transfer of sovereign
ty, AugusTl2, 1898," tho Attorney Oen
eral of the United States, Hon. John
W. QrlKKS.'dld. within a little less than
, four months after the Chief Justice
f handed down the decision In the Pea
cock case, decide that "the Hawaiian
Republic, as a separate and sovereign
power, ceased to exist when the reso
lution of annexation took effect." and
that "The resolution of annexation
took effect, as of the dale of Its op-
proval, to wit July 7, 1898, with re
spect to public lands, and not August
" 12. 1898 the date on which the cere
monies took placo formally transfer
ring possession." Opinions of the At
torney General, Vol. 23, pp. 574, 628.
This was decided by him In September,
' 1899 and November 21 1899j be ren
dered a second opinion when Mr. A. S.
llartwell went to Washington and ask
i cd reconsideration of his first decision
' on behalf of President Dolo, and re
asserted his first opinion In the later
ono. Knowing undoubtedly of the de
cision of the Peacock case and that his
first decision was contrarj to the doc
trine therein enunciated, tho' learned
'Vttorney Oeneral In his second opinion
"Opinions of the Attorney aenerol.
'ol. 22, p. 631) says: "I cannot but
hluk that the Representative of the
lawallan Government has failed to
ppreclato tile fact that tho Hawaiian
epubllc as a separate and "sovereign
er ceased to exist when the reso--)f
annexation took effect."
-ol Attorney Genernl.
It will be readily seen that
'0 at least who "would
.v that annexation took
,0 transfer of sover
eignty August 12, 189 V unless we are
now asked to regard the decisions of
the Attorney General as not ' serious."
Again, the court saja In its opinion
In the Peacock case that If w had
been ceded to tho United States b) fi
treaty of peace "would the Constitution
extend to It forthwith ex propria
lgorc with the result that crime could
not be suppressed because there was no
provisions for a grand Jury or for
unanimous verdict by petit Juries and
questions of private right could not
bo settled for the same reaon tuat
there wa3.n0 provision fur unanimous
verdicts, and the rights o! tho people
however hostile to Keep and bear arms
could not be Infringed, and trade with
other countries might be suspended
because there was no law extending the
United States shipping and custom
laws to the newly acquired Torrltor
and no muchlnrrv for the collection ot
duties under I'nltcd states hws an.
vessels reglotered under the laws of
the required tcrrltoiy would be with
out a flag, so that, m a word, thero
would be anarch) It place ot order!"
Now let us s e .low this reasoning
has been uphcll by tnc authorities lu
the United States In the first place
less than n month after the decision In
the Peacock cafe the Hawaiian SU'
Drome Court In an opinion by Judgi
Frear, who also wroto the i!"Is1om In
the Peacock case, held per svllabu.
"The registry laws of Hawaii were not
sirogattd Immediately upon the an
nexation of these Islands to the I'nltcd
States " and the court said, 'The Ha
waiian registration laws are a part of
the municipal legislation of these Isl
ands which was to lemaln In force tem
porarily by the terms of the Joint
Resolution of nuncxatlon,"
On September 12, 1S99, this decision
was reviewed by Hon. John W. Griggs
(22 Opinions of Attorney General, p.
579. 5S1) who said, "the Joint resolu
tion of Congress for Uie annexation of
tho Hawaiian Islands provide that
'the municipal legislation of the isl
ands , not Inconsistent with
tnln6," and then said, "With due re
fills Joint resolution shall
United States sHall ott-erwlsc deter
remain in force until Consuls of tho
spect to the Judgments of the Supreme
Court of Hawaii, I am unable to admit
that a Hawaiian registry can now be
Issued to n vessel and the flag of Ha
waii, "the U3U.M token of registration,
be llovvn by her,' and "Hy the very
language of the resolution municipal
legislation inconsistent with the reso
lution shall not remain In force, and
upon these views 1 am constrained 10
hold that the icgistratlon laws of Ha
waii have been abrogated as a neccs
sary consequence of annexation."
What did the Supreme Court Of Ha
waii sa In tegard to this last provision
of the resolution of annexation? In
the decision following the Peacock
case. Republic v. Edwards, 12 Haw,
5o, thej said. In construing the pro
vision that "The municipal legislation
of the Hawaiian Islands, uol enacted
for the fulfillment of the treaties so ex
tinguished and not Inconsistent with
this Joint 1 evolution nor eoutiary to
tho Constitution of the United States,
nor to any existing trcatv of the United
States shall remain In force," etc, that
It was only bv Inference that they could
hold that lav. s Inconsistent with the
resolution or contrarj to the Constitu
tion or to any existing treaty, ca
abrogated, and that to hold that the
sentence made such an Inference was to
hold that It was Intended to be, not,
as It purports, an affirmative declara
tion of what should continue put an
Indirect repeal of what was npt de
clared to continue. On general prin
ciples such a construction should not
be favored." The reasoning of the
court was that the "Inference Is one of
repeal and that repeals by Implication
aro not favored." But the rule as stat
ed does not apply here for Congress If
It did anything abrogated and annul
led such legislation and did not "re
peal" It. A statute can be repealed
only by the power which passed It, and
Congress In acting upon our laws did
not repeal any of them but It did
abrogate and annul many of them. But
nn'.,llM. tt .(.la'tinnoHnn lVt iiulc.
ivtjuiunsa ML ...is iwn"uu
nvnt of the local Supreme Court that
laws Inconsistent "with thi Joint
Resolution' and "contrary to the Con
stitution of the United States" and
"any existing treaty" remain In fores
regardless of the provision of the reso
lution, and that these provisions were
"Intended to be merely declaratory and
not remedial" and therefore are of no
force or effect to abrogate Inconsistent
or contrary laws In expressly and em
phatically repudiated by Attorney Oen
eral Griggs where he sas that "with
all due respect to tho Judgments of tho
Supreme Court In Hawaii," by "tun
very language of tho resolution muni'
clpal legislation Inconsistent with the
resolution shall not remain In force,"
(22 Opinions ot the Attorney General,
p. 580. 581).
And here It should ho noted that the
"very language of the resolution" Is
tho Bame speaking of "legislation In
consistent" theiewlth as It Is ot laws
"not contrary to tne Constitution" nnd
that It must follow that by "the very
language pf the resolution" laws "con
trary to t'nc Constitution" were abro
gated. The reasoning of the Peacock case
and other cases In which Chief Justlcs
Frear wrote the opinion of the court Is
based principally upon what the court
calls a "transition period"' and It Is
this "transition period' theory upon
which the later decision In tho Mar
shall ease Is based. That Is that there
wns a period during which we wcb In
0 Btate of transition from a fondgn
country (with reference to tho United
States) to a country which became a
part of tho United States.
This theory this Court, docs not
think Bound, and belloves that not only
the authorities but tho reasoning ub
set forth In tho case of ex-parto Ed
wards, 13 Haw., p. 32, states tho law' as
It Is, and that tho conclusion therein
arrived at that the "Hawaiian Islands
vvero a part of tho United StatdB on
tho 10th day of August, A. D. 1898;
that tho Fifth and Sixth Amendments
Jo the Constitution of the United
States wero In force hero at that time.
Transit Ian Period Burled
The "transition period" theory has,
however, been put to rest In "Innoui
aus desuetude" by tho Suprome Court
of the United 8tatPs In the "Injiil-K
cases," and all question bb to the Pea
cock case and caBes decided upon tho
rensoning therein being authority now
In theso Islands haB been foreclosed
by that court, the decisions of which
aro tho supremo law of the land, hind-
nc as well upon tho supremo court
of this Territory as upon this Cour
Tho Peacock enso nnd tho first t-il
wards cases wore decided by the Sit
prcmo Court of tho Republic of Hawaii
ipon tho theory that tho case of Flem
Ing v. Page, 9 Haw., U. S. fi03. In Its
opinion by Chief Justice Taney held
that duties did not nccruo to tho Uni
ted States In her newlfc acquired Teiri
torlcs until provision was nado bv Ait
of Congress for thtlr collection nnd lor
collodion districts, nnd tho further
theory that the subroquent Cnso of
Uross v. llnrrlson. Ifi How U. 3. 101,
did not modify or overrule tho caso 01
rletnlng v Page. In fact, out Supreme
Court lonsht to distinguish tho later
case nnd to hold It not applicable. In
other words, our Supreme Court relic I
upon the authority of Fleming v. Page
nnd repudiated the rase of Cross v
Harrison as mere dictum. Tho S11
promt' Court of the United Stntcs,
however. In Do Limn v. Illdwell, In the
opinion of tho Court (21 Supremo
Court Reporter, pages 747-754) have
held the icvcrso to bo true and have
decided tint tho case of Fleming V.
Pago on the point In question wax
mere dictum and was "practically ov
drilled In Cross v. Harrison" (Id. p.
752). II tho cnso relied upon by our
Supreme Court (Fleming v. Pago) was
''practically oven tiled In Cross v. Har-
rlion." and our Supreme Court refused
to follow Cross v. Harrison, of what
value now Is tho "reasoning" or the
conclusion of our Supreme Court In
tho Peacock case nnd the first Edwards
cases? Tho statement of tho case con
tains the answer, for it follows as do"8
night the tiny that the Stipremu Court
of tho Republic of Hawaii has betn
overruled in Its rensoning and conclu
sion based upon tho authority of a
case which has been overruled by the
Supremo Court of the United Stntoi
In fact, tho learned Attorney Gen
crnl seems to concede by his nrgumsnt
and In fact expressly conceded to Hi! J
Court, In answer to a question by 110
Court, that this Court should not pwy
any nttetttlon to the Peacock case
The Suprome Court of tho United
States Court say. In tho opinion of the
court In Do Lima v. Illdwell (Id. p.
748). In s,peaklng of the case of Cross
IInrrl80n, supra, that "after tho rati
fication '6f the treaty, California be
came part of tho United States' and
"became Instantly bound and prlvl
leged" by the tariff Inws of the United
Stntes. Tho court further said that
"To the objection that no collection
districts hail been established In Call
lornln and In apparent dissent from
the views of tho Chief Justice In Flem
Ing v Page, he ndded (p. 190 I., ed
902), 'It was urged that our revenue
laws covered only so much of the Tci
rltoiy of tho United Stntes an had
been divided Into collection districts,
and that out ot them no aiithoilty ha 1
been given to prevent the Infilling of
lorclgn goods or to charge duties upon
them, though such landing hnd linen
made within tho territorial llmlU nf
the United Stntott. To this It mjy be
cuccessfully replied that collection ills
trlcts and pnrtB of cntrj nro 116 muio
than designated localities within and
at which Congress hnd extended a lib
crty of commeico in tho United State?
niul that so much of its ti rrltorj us
was not within tuny collection dlsttlct
must be considered as having been
withheld from that liberty." Tho court
further says that the court In Cross v.
Harrison "seemed to take an entirely
different vlow of the tacts connected
with tho admission of those Territories
from what had been taken in Fleming
v. Page," and that "Tho doctrine tint
n poit ceded to and occupied by us
does not lose Its furclgn character 1111
til Congress has acted and a collector
is appointed was distinctly repudiated
vvltl) tho apparent acquiescence ot
Chief Justice Tnney, who wrote the
opinion in Iteming v. Page and still re
mained tho Chief Justice, of the
Court." The Court then states that
"the practice and rulings of tho Ex
ecutive Department with respect to
tno status of newly acqulicd Terri
tories prior to such status being set
tled by acts of Congress. Is. with a
single exception, strictly In line with
the decision of this court In Cross .
Harrison, 1G How, 1C4." and then goes
fully Into the rulings as to Louisiana.
Florida,' Texas, California and Alaska.
The court then states:
From this rcsumo of the decisions
of this coutt, tho Instructions of the
Executive Departments, and tho above
acts of Congress, it Is ovldent that
from 1803. tho date of Mr. Gallatin's
letter, to the present time, there Is not
a shred of authority oxcept the dictum
in Flomlng v. Pago (practically over
ruled In Cross v, Harrison) for holding
that a district ceded to and In posses
sion of the Jnlted States remains for
any purposes a foreign country. Doth
theso conditions must exist to produce
a change of nationality for revenue
purposes." Tho court then states:
'Hut wero this presented as an orig
inal question wo should bo Impelled
Irresistibly to the same conclusion,"
(Id. p. 732.1
The court then proceeds to Btnto
(hat "by tuo ratification of tho treatj
of Paris tho Island became territory of
the United States," stating also that
"a country ccaseB to 'bo forcgn tho
Instant It becomes domestic"
"The theory that a country remains
foreign with respect to tho tariff laws
until Congress lias acted by embracing
It within tho customs union presup
poses that a country ma) be domestic
for ono purpose am. foreign for anoth
er. It may undoubtedly become neccs
saiy, for tho adequate administration
ot a domestic Terrltoi y, to pass a spe
cial act providing tho piopcr inachln
cry and officers, as the President
would have no authority, except under
tho war povvei, to administer It him
self; but no act Is nc essary. to make
It a domestic Territory If once It hab
been ceded to the United States."
The theory that a country may ra
main foreign with respect to tho tariff
laws and domestic for other purposes,
tho court BayB, presupposes that "ev
erythlng mai bo done which a Govern
ment can do In Its own boundaries,
and yet that the Toirltory may still ro
main a foreign country. That this
Btato.of things may continue for years,
for a centuiy even, but that until Con
gress enacts otherwise It still temainx
a foreign country, To hold that this
can bo dono as a matter of law we
deem to bo pure Judicial legislation,
We find no wan ant for it In tho Con
stlttitlon or In tho powers lonfcried
upon this court. It Is true tho non ac
tion ot Congress may occasion a tern
porary Inconvenience, but it does not
follow that courts of Justice aro au
thorized to remedy It by Inverting the
ordinary meaning of words."
Right here It suggests Itself to the
mind of tho Court how differently have
tho Supremo Court of tho Republic i.f
Hawaii reasoned. They say in con
struing the plain meaning of tho words
that tho municipal Inws "not contrary
to the Constitution" shall remain In
force; that If they hold that laws con
trary thereto nro abrogated, crlnio
could not bo Biippiessed because theie
is no provision for a grand Jury or
unanimous verdicts, and, 'thero Is no
machinery for the collection of tlitllos
under tho United States laws, anu ves
sels registered under tho Inws of tho
acquired territory would be without a
flag, so that In n word there v-o ltd be
anarch) In place of otder. ' iPvico"k
v. Republic, supra ) And there fore
they 'Invert the ordinnr) mennliw of
words' and, hold that the prov'sloi of
tho resolution that laws "not coiitrnry
to the Constitution' means "law? inn
trar) nnd not contrary to the ''"on-.'I-tution"
remain In lorce.
This Court prefers to fallow tho 1
ruling that courts ot Justica an .10I au
thorized 'to remedy temp.), at inion
tenleiicos by Inverting tho ordinary
meaning of words.
Hut no such result as that stated b
tho Supremo Court and by the Attor
ney General would follow.
In ex parte Edwards, 1 Haw. 45, 40,
where it was held that the defendant
was guaranteed a unanimous verdict,
tho court said,
"Does this construction of tho law
mean, as has been enrni-stly cwitwidod,
that criminals should, of necessity, go
unpunished and that there wns no pro
tection to life and property on the Ha
waiian Ulands between the 7th of July,
1S98, the dntc of signing the resolu
tion, and the 14th day of June, 1900,
the dntc tho Organic Act went Into
effect? Ccrtnlnly not. During all the
period there wns organized Govern
ment here, there wero officers and
courts, legally constituted, continued
In office and exlstcnco by tho order of
Picsldcnt MeKlnley under the authori
ty given In tho Joint lesolutlon.
Returning to the decision In Do
Limn v. Illdwell, wo find tho court
again saying (p. 754): "Wo aro un
able to acquiesce in this assumption
that a territory may be at the same
time both foregn and domestic.
Tho court then concludes: "V Dr.9
therelorc of the opinion that nt (lie
time these duties were levied Porto
Ulco wns not a foreign countr) wlihln
the meaning of the tariff laws, but
a Territory of the United States, that
the duties were Illegally exacted and
that the plaintiffs arc entitled to ie
cover them back."
From a review of thU decision it Ib
very apparent that thero enn bo np
'transition period." as announced In
the opinions of the Supreme Court of
the Republic or Hawaii In the Ed
wards ease; that instend or a
"transition period" theory by which
"temporarylncouvenlcnee" wnn sought
to bo temedled by pure Judicial legis
lation, ' the Hnwallnn Islands either
became domestic or remained foreign.
There was no "transition peilod"
about It, and no ' Inchoate- annexa
Hon." "A country censes to bo foielgn
the instant It becomes domestic. ' "We
arc unable to nequlescc In the a. sump
tlou that n territory may be at t.ie
same time both foreign and domeVe."
Thus speaks the Supreme Court ot the
United Stntes or America and In so
speaking rings the death kne.l or
"transition periods" and "Inchoate mi
nuxatlon." Even the learned Attor-.e
General now pauses and uln.lts that
he has Incorrectl) used this phrnso lu
consequence of what the .lupiiino
Court of the United States htvo said
and that under their dernlon there
rould not bo such a condition or pe
riod In the status of the Hawaiian Isl
ands. As to the contention of the At
torncy General that not even tho firi-t
ten amendments to the C institution
were In forco hero prior to tno (I runic
Act nnd that perhaps even klavei)
might exist, I can only say tint even
the Chler Justice, who wroto the de
cision In the Peacock anJ "ssi Ed
wards rases, has hastened to deny nil)
part In the decision holding that the
amendment In regard to slaver was
not In force here.
Tho Court has fully conslJeiel the
great responsibility devolvln-r upon It
11 it siiouiu discharge rrom mipii.on
ment nun convicted or grave and hein
ous offenses, but this Court will not
willingly shirk its duty and allow nuy
ono to bo restrained or his Illicit) lf
convinced mat upon application tj
this Com t the applicant has been de
prived ot his liberty con'nry to a
right guaranteed him by tho Constitu
tion then In rorce, and this Court firm
ly and unequivocally belle.-tuft- tint at
the tlmo petitioner wns tried h-j was
guaranteed tho right ot lr'i.l by Jury
and that, in order to coim.-t, all twelve
ot tho Jurors should have agree I to tho
verdict, and It affirmatively appearing
on the record herein that three Jurors
dissented trom tho verdict, tho peti
tioner Is entitled under tho Constitu
tion this Court haB taken Its solemn
obligation to uphold, to bo discharged,
and It Is therefore ordered, adjudged
and decreed that the writ of habeas
corpus Issue, and the prisoner bo dis
charged. GEAR, Judge.
The Manufacturers' Shoe Co.'s Clear
ance Sale Is still on, and they will wait
on joii even If they are rushed.
Mistress (to servant) ''Be cart-ft.1
not to spill any soup on the UlleV
laps." Biddy (new In the service)
"Yes, mum; where shall I spill lt?"
For Sale at a Sacrifice
LOT 50x158 planted with
fruit trees, 300 feet from
Wilder Avenue. : : : : :
T T T"
J. JVL VIVAS
P08T OFFICE LANE.
Judd & Company
Fire and Life Insurance Agents,
Stock and Bond Brokers,
Real Estate Agents,
Rents and Bills Collected.
Agents Hailewood Cream Co.
of Portland, Ore.
Agents Occidental Oil Co.
' of West Virginia.
Office, No. 307 Stangenwald Building.
Tel., Main 223. P. O. Box 667.
A AAAf. amuaaa AAA Mk
The PACIFIC HARDWARE CO., Ltd.
has just received
A CARLOAD OH
Picture Frames, Brass
Curtain Rods (.K in.)
with Brackets, Pole
Ends, Hooks and Rings
Wood Curtain Poles
(from 1 to 2 in.) with fittings
A LARGK VARIETY COMPR SING
THE LATEST FINISHES. : : ,: :
E PACIFIC HARDWARE CO., LTD.
rr ART ROOMS
W f Iff fWWfff Iff ffffwlWWfWH WW Iff fflfffffifif f
One Style Out of Many
of a new
UP - TO -
Stylish, roomy and comfortable.
Standard Goods. None Better.
SCHUMANS CARRIAGE REPOSITORY,
MERCHANT ST., BET. FORT AND ALAKEA.
TEL. MAIN go;. ' P. O. BOX 664
tji nitty ttitttttitittttmttttiiititttttttittttt 1 itttittiti
W. W. WRIGHT
Spacious New Qnarters
at the junction of
KING and SOUTH STS
I Buggies, Phaetons, Wagons and
Vehicles of all sorts made to order. : : : :
CARRIAGE MATERIALS AND
TRIMMINGS ; a fall stock always on hand
Carriage Repairiig, Black
smithing, -iPaliliag, Sign
"" - Writing, Etc., Etc. : : :
KING AND SOUTH
John A. Hossinger
Agent to tt'ant Marriage Licenses and
General Business Agent.
Office, Mclnetny Qtock next to C. I. Falk
0Y8TER AND CHOP HOUSE.
OPEN NIGHT AND DA,
l.unch and Dinner a Specialty.
HOTEL STREET, near Nuuanu, neat tool lo fada.
Ryan's ,",Eocote" iDil-ia
rchltects, Contractors and Builders.
Edward R. Swain.
STAMlENWAltJ BID , HOMOIU
I f CROCKER DUILDINO.
V. HOFFMANN. J F HIIEY.
Hoffman & Riley
' AND BUILDERS.
Geo. W. Page. Tel. 229
F. W. Bcardslce. P. O. Box 778
BBARD8i.EE & PAGE
Architects & Builder
Offlco, Rooms 2-4, Arlington Annex,
Honolulu, T. II.
Sketches and Correct Estimates fur
nlehed on Short Notice. 1411
OP ALL KINDS.
ealerH in Lumber and Goal,
Queen Street, Honolulu.
P WTRACTOR AND
Jobbing promptly sttendel to.
1. F. BBRTJ3LMAN'8
Carpenter Shop ,,
, 18 RBMOVBD
To rear of old stand. Entrance on
King street. Orders left at either shop
or office nt John Nott's store, King
street, will recelte prompt attention.
Chinese and Japanese Firms.
Fine English and American Goods
65 Hotel street, JnJ
Hotel near Nuuanu
P O B0X;6i TEI WHITS 9 j
T. KAT8UNUMA & Co.
A K OZAWA. Mioitit.
GENERAL BUSINESS AGENCY.
rMpotirr OBt: Moot. iititlln SrtKktli billt
r ti, 44 '
LiJIm ftklrtt cteanei. Clothing
cltnt4,4tJ nJ rrrrr.l
Slilt t-ni.la in f tar
Fit euiniiccl LoAtitp let.
For' Sttftt. near Kukul, and
Bar Orpbcun Tbtatf r,
Mrlcn OtinlBff nt iu!t, tjc.
to stilt everv
taste and etery
purse : : : :
Lewers & Cooke, (
W. H. THONE, Proprietor.
A. Harrison Mill Co.
STIMATU FURNISHED ON UL KINDS OP
Brick and 6tone Work
Manufacturers of Doors, Sashes and
??Ks,BllPds Mouldings, Brackets, and
All Klni1 nfWnAft Uln.li Cl.l.l. T...-1--
i?. r-7 ff "iviu, UIH3II illllUg
. UI. KAWAIAHAO STy, KEWALO,
Tel. White 1221 P. O. Box 2.
COTTON BROS. & CO.
bNGINEERS AND : : :
Pln tnd titlmaus (urnlil.J for ll cluxt ot
., (.omractlni tork.
ROOM j.o, BOSTON DLOCK, - HONOLULU
New Map of Oahu.
Conpltd Irom Government Surveys ani Charts
Macs ot Sutar Plantnloni, hilltays. ana Uther
Reliable Surces. THC MAP is )Su inches,
with artistic culcrlnes and neat mountings, inak
Inp a very useful as ll ns ornimen'al wall nan
the 1 vice of the map Is $o 00, Conies can
be obtain,) from
JAS T. TAYLOR.
P. O, Boa ?oo I' Juli HullJInt, IlKnolulut T II
or HAWAIIAN NEWS Ltl .LTD
Honolulu Iron Works Co
Improved and modern SUGAIt MA-.
CHINKIIY of every capacity and de
scription made to ordct, Doller work
and MVETED PIPES for Irrigation
purposes- a specialty. Particular atter
tlon paid to JOB WORK, and repairs
executed at shortest notice.
1 &&&$& -