The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1873-11-15

thoughts for your consideration"
The PUBLISHED opinions of the three Justices
composing the Supreme Court in the Habeas Cor
pus case of the Chinese coolie Wong Sow, have
attracted much attention, and the decision ar
rived at by a majority of the Court, affirming the
decree for the discharge of the coolie, has been re-
ceived by a large portion of the community with
surprise and 4 feeling akin to Indignation. The
mischief, to be sure, was already done to the COM
merce of the port when it was demonstrated asi in
this instance of the G~lenSdnnOr, that meddling
parties on shore possessed the power as well as
the will to cause trouble and annoyance TO calling
ships by melting persons to come on shore and
enter our Courts of law, who would never dream
of such a course If not thus suggested, inasmuch
as no real cause existed for it. But our reputa-
ton is now unfortunately established as to the ex-
istence among US of such a pseudo philanthro-
pic sentiment of interference with m
and the readiness of our Courts to entertain and
sustain it. 1t is undoubtedly a sound doctrine
that passengers on a ship are free to come and 90
at will, but this doctrine is surely liable to some
exceptions, and the case of these coolies is one.
They were bound to go to Costa Rica in the ship,
by their legally executed contracts, and the mas
ter was bound to carry them thither. There was
no desire on the part of the men to do otherwise
than to carry out their contracts, and no desire to
come on shore, until melted thereto by interested
parties here, whose evident object was to break up
the voyage for the furtherance OF their own ends,
as expressed in nearly these words by the Chief
Justice. The Italian Consul, becoming aware of
these designs, very properly warned the master of
the ship and she promptly went to sea-, otherwise
the probabilities were that the whole six hundred
coolies composing her company, would have been
turned loose upon US. OF course the principle
that liberated Wong Sow applies to the other five
hundred and ninety-nine. A vast deal of SYM
pathy of a questionable sort is gotten up for the
sfpoor %coolie," who was well fed and treated and
comfortably lodged on board, and who was under
4 contract on which he had received advance
wages; but there appears to have been no SYM
patty felt nor a desire even to do justice for the
owners of the ship who had contracted to deliver
these bound servants at the port of destination.
Under all the circumstances, the taking away of
Wong Sow from those who had a just claim upon
him was nothing more nor less than an outrage.
Can there be a doubt of the purpose for which the
mischievous meddlers on shore sought to take
these Cinnamon from the ship? Do the Judges,
or any body else, entertain the slightest doubt
that it was their deliberate intention to keep them
on shore, and thereby injure those who had done
them no wrong but who had so bountifully pro-
vided for their comfort and actually brought them
into this port for the purpose of increasing those
comforts for the remainder of the yoyage?-
which seems to have been appreciated by the 500
ubO raS;atad fba Embellishments oc 4boso ~
deayored to seduce them on shore. Is the mere
caprice of this isolated Chinaman such a grieyous
case as the Legislature intended to be remedied
by this statute? To deprive these parties who
have brought the Cinnamon here at great expense
on their way to a place of their own selection, of
their rightful profits, seems in a moral point of
view to be about rs much Of a wrong as TO steal
cargo from Z merchant ship; and yet our Court
felt coerced by the language of the statute to le-
galize the act.
Reading the decision of the majority of the
Court in this case and then that of the Chief
Justice who dissents, every one must be equally
struck with the superficial character of the one
and the thorough soundness (though diffuseness)
Of the other. The majority of the Court appear
to have felt bound, without any discretion what
ever, to the literal Interpretation of law, espe-
cially laying a heavy strain upon the words
. .shal" and every person" Will any one
contend that it was ever the intention of the
Legislature to enact 4 law which could be thus
construed to sanction the ruin of commerce. and
permit the letting loose upon our shores of whole
ship-loads of irresponsible low-class Chinese
We do not believe that three men could have
been found in the Legislature of 1870 TO vote for
the law, could they have foreseen such n possible
construction of its provisions.
The principle has repeatedly been laid down
that our Courts will exercise jurisdiction in Ad-
miralty or decline to do so. as a sound discretion
may indicate is not this a parallel case? Says
the Chief Justice on this point:
If it is regarded as imperative in the Courts to as
sumo jurisdiction in these cases, 1t might be in its
results dangerous TO the peace of the Kingdom to
permit so large a body Of men to come on shore
means TO supply their necessary wants. All
countries are cautious about exercising jurisdiction
on passengers who are IN tTGESitu to their own coun-
try and from their own country to another country.
1t is the general principle of comfy to remit the
parties to their home forum.
It is only in extreme cases that Courts will exer-
Else jurisdiction over foreigners iR trdnSitu to a
nome port, or port Of destination. 1t is not pretend