In re Wilder's Steamship Company
This was a petition by the Wilder's Steamship Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Territory of Hawaii, for a writ of mandamus to the United States circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit to entertain an appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Hawaii.

On December 27, 1899, the steamer Claudine, one of the petitioner's steamships, came into collision with the barkentine William Carson. On February 5, 1900, the owners of the William Carson and of her cargo filed a libel in admiralty against the steamship company in the circuit court of the first judicial circuit of the Republic of Hawaii. On May 7, 1900, that court rendered a decree against the steamship company in the sum of $55,000, upon the ground that the collision was caused by the fault of the steamship company, with no fault or negligence on the part of those in charge of the William Carson. From that decree an appeal was taken to the supreme court of the Republic of Hawaii, as provided by the then existing law of the Republic. On November 9, 1900, the cause having come on regularly to be heard before the supreme court of the territory of Hawaii, the decree was affirmed by that court. On the same day, an appeal was claimed from that court to the United States circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit, but was denied, for want of jurisdiction, by the supreme court of the territory on November 7, 1900, and by the circuit court of appeals on April 1, 1904. 13 Hawaii, 174; 47 C. C. A. 243, 108 Fed. 113.

On March 5, 1901, the steamship company presented to this court a petition praying that an order, under § 15 of the act of March 3, 1891 [26 Stat. at L. 826], chap. 517, assigning the territory of Hawaii to the ninth circuit, might be made nunc pro tunc as of June 15, 1900, the date at which the act of Congress of April 30, 1900 [31 Stat. at. L. 141], chap. 339, entitled 'An Act to Provide a Government for the Territory of Hawaii,' took effect.

On April 12, 1901, the petitioner filed in this court a petition praying for a similar order, and further praying that a writ of mandamus might issue to the United States circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit to set aside its order denying the appeal, and to entertain the cause.

On April 15, 1901, this court 'ordered that the territory of Hawaii be, and it is hereby, assigned to the ninth judicial circuit under § 15 of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891,' gave leave to file this petition for a writ of mandamus, and awarded a rule to show cause, returnable on May 13.

On May 3, after that order, the petitioner presented to the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit another petition for the allowance of an appeal from the decree of the supreme court of the territory of Hawaii; and that petition was denied.

On May 13, the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit made a return, that upon the facts stated in the petition it had not jurisdiction of the appeal; that the question whether it had such jurisdiction came before it for adjudication and was judicially determined; and that its decision in the matter constituted a final judgment, properly subject to review in this court by writ of certiorari.

The case was submitted to this court upon the petition for a mandamus, the return thereto, and a motion of the petitioner to file in evidence its petition of May 3 to the circuit court of appeals and the disallowance thereof.

The Republic of Hawaii, before its annexation to the United States, had a fully organized government. The judicial system consisted of courts of original and appellate jurisdiction, whose powers were defined by the Constitution and statutes of the Republic. The circuit courts were the courts of general original jurisdiction, and had power to determine all civil causes in admiralty. In such causes, as well as in other cases, the supreme court had appellate jurisdiction, and its decrees, by express provision of the Constitution, were made 'final and conclusive.' Constitution of Hawaii, arts. 82-86. Ballou's Civil Laws of Hawaii, 1897, §§ 1105, 1136, 1144, 1145, 1164, 1430, 1433, 1434.

By the Joint Resolution of the Congress of the United States of July 7, 1898, resolution 55, the Hawaiian islands were annexed to the United States, and it was provided that 'until Congress shall provide for the government of such islands, all the civil, judicial, and military powers exercised by the officers of the existing government in said islands shall be vested in such person or persons and shall be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct; and the President shall have power to remove said officers and fill the vacancies so occasioned;' and that 'the municipal legislation of the Hawaiian islands,' 'not inconsistent with this joint resolution, nor contrary to the Constitution of the United States, nor to any existing treaty of the United States, shall remain in force until the Congress of the United States shall otherwise determine.' 30 Stat. at L. 750.

On July 8, 1898, 'in the exercise of the power thus conferred upon him by the Joint Resolution, the President hereby directs that the civil, judicial, and military powers in question shall be exercised by the officers of the Republic of Hawaii as it existed just prior to the transfer of sovereignty, subject to his power to remove such officers and to fill the vacancies.' Letter of Secretary of State to Minister Sewall; Report 305. H. R. 56th Congr. 1st sess. p. 3.

On August 12, 1898, the sovereignty of the Hawaiian islands was transferred to the United States. The act of Congress of April 30, 1900, chap. 339, entitled 'An Act to Provide a Government for the Territory of Hawaii,' which by its terms took effect June 15, 1890, declared in § 1 that the phrase 'the laws of Hawaii,' as therein used, should mean the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Hawaii in force at the date of that transfer; and in § 2 that the islands so acquired should be known as the territory of Hawaii; and contained the following provisions:

'Sec. 5. The Constitution and, except as herein otherwise provided, all the laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within the said territory as elsewhere in the United States.'

'Sec. 6. The laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States or the provisions of this act shall continue in force, subject to repeal or amendment by the legislature of Hawaii or the Congress of the United States.'

Section 7 repealed the Constitution and various laws of the Republic of Hawaii, including those on maritime matters. 31 Stat. at L. 141, 142, chap. 339.

'Sec. 10. All rights of action, suits at law and in equity, prosecutions and judgments existing prior to the taking effect of this act shall continue to be as effectual as if this act had not been passed.' 'All criminal and penal proceedings then pending in the courts of the Republic of Hawaii shall be prosecuted to final judgment and execution in the name of the territory of Hawaii; all such proceedings, all actions at law, suits in equity, and other proceedings, then pending in the courts of the Republic of Hawaii, shall be carried on to final judgment and execution in the corresponding courts of the territory of Hawaii; and all process issued and sentences imposed before this act takes effect shall be as valid as if issued or imposed in the name of the territory of Hawaii.' 31 Stat. at L. 143, chap. 339.

'Sec. 81. The judicial power of the territory shall be vested in one supreme court, circuit courts, and in such inferior courts as the legislature may from time to time establish. And until the legislature shall otherwise provide, the laws of Hawaii heretofore in force concerning the several courts and their jurisdiction and procedure shall continue in force, except as herein otherwise provided.'

'Sec. 83. The laws of Hawaii relative to the judicial department, including civil and criminal procedure, except as amended by this act, are continued in force, subject to modification by Congress or the legislature.' 31 Stat. at L. 157, chap. 339.

'Sec. 86. 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 of the United States, 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, district attorney, and marshal shall have and exercise in the territory of Hawaii all the powers conferred by the laws of the United States upon the judges, district attorneys and marshals 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.' 31 Stat. at L. 158, chap. 339.

Mr. Duane E. Fox submitted the case for the petitioner, and Messrs. Nathan H. Frank, and Kinney, Ballou, & McClanahan were with him on the brief.

Messrs. Charles Page, E. J. McCutchen, C. H. Lindley, Henry Eickhoff, and Paul Neumann for respondents.

Mr. Justice Gray, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court: 

Notes
United States Supreme Court decisions on civil procedure United States Supreme Court decisions on treaties Automated categorization