Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T13:27:45.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Vector Space Models to Understand the Circulation of Habeas Corpus in Hawai'i, 1852–92

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Charles W. Romney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Habeas corpus arrived in the Hawaiian Kingdom in the 1840s and 1850s when it appeared in the kingdom's legislative proceedings, in the 1852 Constitution, and in a published legal decision. However, a description of the transmission and transplantation of a common-law concept to a particular place in the Pacific Ocean does little to explain how people in the kingdom used habeas corpus. Habeas corpus circulated widely in the kingdom between 1852 and 1892. Did the application of the writ in Hawai'i change the conceptual architecture of habeas corpus? Legal historians have several different methods to find out how habeas corpus functioned and how judges, lawyers, and litigants molded the writ's legal identity. Reading the published judicial opinions preserved in print volumes or subsequently digitized in databases provides a window into the way judges construed habeas corpus. The archival records of the legal cases illuminate how local lawyers and ordinary litigants wielded habeas corpus to achieve their goals. In addition to these traditional methods of legal and historical research, computer code identifies conceptual patterns in a digitized corpus of the kingdom's legal decisions. Each of these methods—close reading, archival research, and computational analysis—represent different angles on the operation and legal content of the writ.

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 34 , Special Issue 4: Digital Law and History , November 2016 , pp. 999 - 1026
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. On the importance of digitized sources to current historical research, see Putnam, Lara, “The Transnational and the Text-Searchable: Digitized Sources and the Shadows They Cast,” American Historical Review 121 (2016): 377–402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on computational analysis for legal history, see Nystrom, Eric C. and Tanenhaus, David S., “The Future of Digital Legal History: No Magic, No Silver Bullets,” American Journal of Legal History 56 (2016): 150–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Merry, Sally Engle, Colonizing Hawai'i: The Cultural Power of Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Arista, Noelani, “Captive Women in Paradise 1796–1826: The Kapu on Prostitution in Hawaiian Historical Legal Context,” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 36 (2011): 39–55 Google Scholar; Silva, Noenoe K., Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; and Osorio, Jon Kamakamiwo'ole, Dismembering Lāhui: A History of the Hawaiian Nation to 1887 (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

4. Halliday, Paul D., Habeas Corpus: From England to Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; and Wert, Justin, Habeas Corpus in America: The Politics of Individual Rights (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

5. McKeown, Adam, “Chinese Immigration in Global Context, 1850–1914,” Journal of Global History 5 (2010): 95–124 Google Scholar; McKeown, Adam, Melancholy Order: Asian Migration and the Globalization of Borders (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Lee, Erika, At America's Gate: Chinese Immigration During the Exclusion Era, 1882–1943 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2013)Google Scholar; and Salyer, Lucy E., Laws Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995)Google Scholar. For the Pacific region in the first half of the nineteenth century, see Igler, David, The Great Ocean: From Captain Cook to the Gold Rush (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

6. For overviews of the history of imperial law, see Kolsky, Elizabeth, “Introduction, Forum on Maneuvering the Personal Law System in Colonial India,” Law and History Review 28 (2010): 973–78Google Scholar; Benton, Lauren, “Introduction: Forum on Law and Empire in Global Perspective,” American Historical Review 117 (2012): 1092–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Benton, Lauren and Ross, Richard, “Empires and Pluralism: Jurisdiction, Sovereignty, and Political Imagination in the Early Modern World,” in Legal Pluralism and Empires, 1500–1850, ed. Benton, Lauren and Ross, Richard (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 1–19 Google Scholar. For an example of imperial law as unstable and contested, see Benton, Lauren, A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar. For an example of imperial law as consistent violence, see Kolsky, Elizabeth, “The Colonial Rule of Law and the Legal Regime of Exception: Frontier ‘Fanaticism’ and State Violence in British India,” American Historical Review 120 (2015): 1218–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Hussin, Iza, “Circulations of Law: Cosmopolitan Elites, Global Repertoires, Local Vernaculars,” Law and History Review 32 (2014): 773–95Google Scholar; and Mawani, Renisa and Hussin, Iza, “The Travels of Law: Indian Ocean Itineraries,” Law and History Review 32 (2014): 733–47Google Scholar.

8. For polyphony of imperial law in different registers, see Hussin, “Circulations of Law.”

9. Habeas corpus in the 1840s, “An Act to Organize the Executive Department,” Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha III, 1845–1846, vol. 1, 52, 198; Constitution of 1852, “Constitution,” Statute Laws of His Majesty Kamehameha III, 1852 April-July & Constitution 1852, 1; both Law Library Microform Consortium (hereafter LLMC).

10. Minutes of the Privy Council, 1850–52 – English/Hawaiian, 667, LLMC; Banner, Stuart, Possessing the Pacific: Land, Settlers, and Indigenous People from Australia to Alaska (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 138–152 Google Scholar; Merry, Colonizing Hawai'i, 3–6; and Silverman, Jane, “Imposition of a Western Judicial System in the Hawaiian Monarchy,” Hawaiian Journal of History 16 (1982): 58–62 Google Scholar.

11. In the Matter of M. M. Webster, 1 Haw. 95 (Haw. Kingdom, 1852), quotations at 97–98.

12. In the Matter of Cambridge, 1 Haw. 340 (Haw. Kingdom, 1855).

13. In Re Kamaha, 2 Haw. 444 (Haw. Kingdom, 1861), liberty at 445, authorities within reach at 445, remand at 452.

14. In Re Apuna, 6 Haw. 732 (Haw. Kingdom, 1869), constitutional statements at 734, Runnymede, spread across the statute books at 735, discharge at 739.

15. In Re Wong Sow, 3 Haw. 503 (Haw. Kingdom, 1873): release and imagined English steamer at 507, “no way to avoid discharging” at 505.

16. Ibid.: great wrong and results dangerous to the peace at 513, abduction at 514, serious evil at 518, “laborers of China and India” at 514.

17. “Wong Sow sworn says,” December 27, 1872, case 1091, box 27, Law Case Files (Series 006), Records of the First Circuit and Supreme Court Series, Records of the Judiciary, Hawaiian State Archives, Honolulu (hereafter S6-RJ-HSA).

18. For introductions to vector space models and semantic similarity, see Clark, Stephen, “Vector Space Models of Lexical Meaning,” in The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. Lappin, Shalom and Fox, Chris, 2nd ed. (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2015), 493–522 Google Scholar; Turney, Peter and Pantel, Patrick, “From Frequency to Meaning: Vector Space Models of Semantics,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37 (2010): 141–88Google Scholar; Manning, Christopher, Raghavan, Prabhakar, and Schütze, Hinrich, An Introduction to Information Retrieval (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 109–134 Google Scholar; and Daniel Jurafsky and James H. Martin, “Vector Semantics,” draft, April 9, 2016, https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/, accessed August 19, 2016. For suggestions on applying vector space models to the humanities, see Michael Gavin, “The Arithmetic of Concepts: A Reply to Peter de Bola,” Modeling Literary History blog, September 18, 2015, http://modelingliteraryhistory.org/2015/09/18/the-arithmetic-of-concepts-a-response-to-peter-de-bolla/, accessed August 19, 2016, and Ben Schmidt, “Vector Space Models for the Digital Humanities,” Bookworm blog, October 25, 2015, http://bookworm.benschmidt.org/posts/2015-10-25-Word-Embeddings.html, accessed August 19, 2016.

19. Embedding the legal reports in vector space produces a model of the linguistic relationships in those reports. On using models in the digital humanities, see McCarty, Willard, Humanities Computing, rev. ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), 20–72 Google Scholar.

20. For example, see Turney and Pantel, “From Frequency to Meaning,” 143, and Clark, “Vector Space Models,” 495; Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations, trans. Anscombe, G. E. M. (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1953)Google Scholar.

21. Skinner, Quentin, Visions of Politics, Volume 1: Regarding Method (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 103–4Google Scholar. For examples of a legal historian referring directly to Skinner's approach, see Halliday, Habeas Corpus, 336–337, fn5, and Paul Halliday, “Laws' Histories: Pluralisms, Pluralities, Diversity,” in Legal Pluralism and Empires, 1500–1850, 268.

22. For a recent survey of options, see Douwe Kiela and Stephen Clark, “A Systematic Study of Semantic Vector Space Model Parameters,” Proceedings of the EACL 2014, 2nd Workshop on Continuous Vector Space Models and their Compositionality (2014): 21–30.

23. Manning, Christopher and Schütze, Hinrich, Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999), 302–3Google Scholar.

24. Nystrom and Tanenhaus, “The Future of Digital Legal History: No Magic, No Silver Bullets,” 156–57.

25. The author wrote all of the computer code used in this analysis in the programming language R. The preprocessing steps follow Jockers, Matthew L., Text Analysis with R for Students of Literature (New York: Springer, 2014), 11–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Jockers's preprocessing steps are similar to those described in Grimmer, Justin and Stewart, Brandon M., “Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts,” Political Analysis 21 (2013): 271–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26. Some of the code followed Jockers, Text Analysis, 31–39 and 73–86.

27. Ingo Feinerer and Kurt Hornik, “Text Mining Package,” (tm for R), July 2015. Feinerer and Hornik's package allows analysis with various parameters, including different weighting schemes and the removal of common words (or stop-words) in several languages.

28. Fredolin Wild, “Latent Semantic Analysis Package,” (lsa for R), May 2015. With a few additional steps, Wild's package can also apply an algorithm for latent semantic analysis to an existing term-document matrix, and can then recalculate the cosine similarity scores. Like the tm package, Wild's package can remove common words, and provides a range of different parameters for vector comparison and statistical analysis.

29. In the Matter of Chow Bick Git, 4 Haw. 385 (Haw. Kingdom, 1881). The phrase with high cosine similarity to Allen's use of “laborers” appears on 389.

30. Osorio, Dismembering Lāhui, 159–76; Silva, Aloha Betrayed, 125–29; Kuykendall, Ralph S., The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume III, 1874–1893 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1967), 116–85Google Scholar; McKeown, Melancholy Order, 132–33; and Okihiro, Gary, Cane Fires: The Anti–Japanese Movement in Hawaii, 1865–1945 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 25–35 Google Scholar.

31. “In Chambers Before Judge Harris,” March 24, 1881; Alfred S. Hartwell, “Brief of Petitioner's Counsel,” no date; B. H. Austin, “Points of Respondent,” no date; case 1296, box 30, S6-RJ-HSA.

32. In the Matter of Chow Bick Git, 4 Haw. 385 (Haw. Kingdom, 1881), at 389–90, 392.

33. Ibid., at 391.

34. The analysis used the same preprocessing steps as outlined previously.

35. In the Matter of Chow Bick Git, 4 Haw. 385 (Haw. Kingdom, 1881), at 389–90, 392.

36. Fong Kee v. C. B. Wilson, 8 Haw. 513 (Haw. Kingdom, 1892), at 517.

37. In the Matter of Ah Mook & Chock Hin, 6 Haw. 664 (Haw. Kingdom, 1887), at 665.

38. In the Matter of Ah Hin on behalf of Man Nun and Ah Hin, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (In Re Man Nun), 7 Haw. 454 (Haw. Kingdom, 1888), Preston at 459, Dole at 462; some slight differences are in “Opinion of the Court,” “Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Justice Dole,” October 22, 1888, case 2682, box 72, S6-RJ-HSA.

39. On Dole's life and career, see Allen, Helena G., Sanford Ballard Dole: Hawaii's Only President (Glendale, CA: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1988)Google Scholar; and Damon, Ethel M., Sanford Ballard Dole and His Hawaii (Palo Alto, CA: Asian Books, 1957)Google Scholar.

40. Kuykendall, Ralph S., The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume II, 1854–1874, Twenty Critical Years (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1953), 192–93Google Scholar.

41. Sanford Dole, “Paper, 1893,” folder “Papers, 1884–1887,” box 1, Sanford Ballard Dole Papers, Hawaii State Archives, Honolulu, Hawaii.

42. Sanford Dole to George Dole, March 6, 1888, box 3, Dole Family Papers, Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

43. For example, see “Decision, In the Matter of Masu Suzuki,” March 7, 1910, case 33, box 5, Records relating to Habeas Corpus, Records of the District Courts of the United States, Records of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (1959- ) and for its Predecessor, the Territory of Hawaii (1900–59), Record Group 21, National Archives Regional Branch—San Francisco.

44. In Re Man Nun, 7 Haw. 454 (Haw. Kingdom, 1888), at 462.

45. In the Matter of M. M. Webster, 1 Haw. 95 (Haw. Kingdom, 1852).

46. Nott v. Kanahele, 4 Haw. 14 (Haw. Kingdom, 1878).

47. Nott v. Kanahele, 4 Haw. 14 (Haw. Kingdom, 1878), at 19; on the majority opinion and dissent, see Beechert, Edward D., Working in Hawaii: A Labor History (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1985), 52 Google Scholar.

48. The King v. Lau Kiu, 7 Haw. 489 (Haw. Kingdom, 1888), at 493, 494. For more on the context for this case see Beechert, Working in Hawaii, 95–96, and Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume III, 178–181.

49. On the benefits of finding patterns in a large number of literary texts, see Jockers, Matt, Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

50. Calculated from S6-RJ-HSA. On the First Circuit Court, see Matsuda, Mari J., “Law and Culture in the District Court of Honolulu, 1844–1845: A Case Study of the Rise of Legal Consciousness,” American Journal of Legal History 32 (1988): 16–41 Google Scholar; Frear, Walter F., “Evolution of the Hawaiian Judiciary,” Papers of the Hawaiian Historical Society 7 (1894): 1–25 Google Scholar.

51. R. W. Irwin to Kanezo Okkotsu, January 15, 1886, folder “Immigration—Japanese, 1886–1900,” box 15, Subject Files, Records of the Department of Interior, Hawaii State Archives, Honolulu (hereafter SF-RDI-HSA).

52. In the Matter of Kamaka (K.), a minor, October 23, 1883, case 1554, box 43, S6-RJ-HSA.

53. Matter of Rebecca, Mother Judith to Justice R. Bickerton, July 17, 1890, case 2893, box 77, S6-RJ-HSA.

54. Between 1877 and 1885 approximately 2,500 Pacific islanders migrated to the Kingdom; most came from the “Gilbert Islands.” Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume III, 126–127.

55. In the Matter of Nei Kamarawa, January 9, 1883, case 1558, box 43, S6-RJ-HSA.

56. For example, see H. Bingham to John Busk, September 4, 1882, folder: “Immigration-South Sea Islanders, 1882–1887,” box 18, SF-RDI-HSA. Mr. Bingham is probably Hiram Bingham. See Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume III, 128.

57. In the Matter of Nei Kamarawa, January 9, 1883, case 1558, box 43, S6-RJ-HSA.

58. The usual citation for Pool v. Gott is 14 Law Reporter 269, but I assume the judges read about the case in a treatise or law review such as the Albany Law Journal 26 (1883): 27.

59. In Re, Nei Kamarawa, Opinion of the Court, case 1558, box 43, S6-RJ-HSA.

60. The literary scholar Cindy Weinstein sees Pool v. Gott as a part of a shift in American culture in which an understanding of family changed from biology and contract to affective relations. The feelings of Lydia mattered. Weinstein, Cindy, Family, Kinship, and Sympathy in Nineteenth Century American Literature (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 57 Google Scholar.

61. In Re, Nei Kamarawa, Opinion of the Court, case 1558, box 43, S6-RJ-HSA.

62. On the interpretative gains and potential pitfalls of using computational methods that come from outside the humanities, see McCarty, Willard, “Becoming Interdisciplinary,” in A New Companion to Digital Humanities, eds. Schreibman, Susan, Siemens, Ray, and Unsworth, John (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016), 69–83 Google Scholar.