100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 28 pages.
prevailed over the English version, which provided for four times theamount of damage done or the value destroyed, because it had "beenthe practice of this court" and "we conform toitin this instance."17Five months later, the Supreme Court was asked again in the case ofHardy v.Rugglesto decide whether the Hawaiian or English version ofa particular statute controlled. The English version required that alldocuments filed with the Bureau of Conveyances were to be stampedprior to filing. The Hawaiian version, however, had no such require-ment. Chief Justice William L. Lee, writing for the Supreme Court,
4 THE HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORYheld that "where there is a radical and irreconcilable differencebetween the English and Hawaiian, the latter must govern, becauseit is the language of the legislators of the country. This doctrine wasfirst laid down by the Superior Court in 1848, and has been steadilyadhered to ever since." Chief Justice Lee further explained that "theEnglish and Hawaiian may often be used to help and explain eachother where the meaning is obscure, or the contradiction slight[.] "18The Supreme Court's legitimization of Hawaiian as the dominant lan-guage, however, was short-lived. Three years afterHardywas decided,"English-mainly" advocates lobbied the Hawaiian legislature to enacta new law in 1859 which reversed Lee's decision by providing that"[I] fat anytime a radical and irreconcilable difference shall be foundto exist between the English and Hawaiian versions of any part of thisCode,theEnglishversionshallbeheld binding"(emphasis added).19Ina later decision, Chief Justice AlbertF.Judd, writing for the SupremeCourt, attempted to reconcile any discrepancies in the translationand interpretation of the dual laws by holding that "the two versionsconstitute but one act. There is no dual legislation.Asa rule, one ver-sion is the translation of the other. The effort is always made to havethem exactly coincide, and the legal presumption is that they do."20Despite Judd's pronouncement, however, English remained the con-trolling law in Hawai'i. Nonetheless, Hawai'i continued to publish itslaws in both Hawaiian and English21until1943,when the practice ofpublishing laws in Hawaiian was abolished by statute.22Missionaries such as William Richards and Dr. GerritP.Judd, wholeft missionary work to serve as official translator/interpreters forKing Kamehameha III, became proficient in both Hawaiian andEnglish and performed their government duties faithfully withoutever publicly advocating the use of one language to the exclusion ofthe other.23However, not all missionaries who left mission work towork for the Hawaiian government endorsed tolerance and diversity.Richard Armstrong, a former missionary who served as the secondminister of public instruction for the kingdom of Hawai'i from 1848until his death in i860, strongly supported the use of English inHawai'i's school system. Armstrong's "English-mainly" attitude isreflected in his own writing:Were the means at our command,