The Hawaiian gazette., 1873-11-12

IN JnlS cOnnecJl0n IL may De well 10 re-
fer to convention concluded on the sth
day of September, 1870, between the King
of the Netherlands and the Queen of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, to facilitate the emigration of free
laborers from the British territory in In.
dia with the Dutch colonies in Surinam.
refer to this convention to show that
Great Britain recognizes contracts of this
character. and authorizes them to be
made, and the parties to embark for the
country where the contracts are to be
executed, and of course she would sustain
the rights of the ship-owners, and the par.
ties interested in the contracts, and give
them under her laws safe convoy to the
place of destination.
Surprising any British vessel should
come into this port from any of the do
minions with parties under these contracts,
when, as in the case at bar, there were
satisfactory accommodations aud good
treatment, the British Government would
be bound to enforce restitution to the
parties in interest, if our Courts should
interfere and discharge the persons on
board by habeas corpus without the cause
already adverted to.
If the petitioner had been abducted
from the country, and was on board of
vessel known as coolie vessel, SO called,
/ should discharge him at once But he
made his own contract freely and without
restraint, and perfectly understood its
terms and conditions, and had on board
of the steamer satisfactory accommoda-
tions and good treatment.
The laborers of China and India can
improve their condition by coming to
these Islands, and many places ON the
continent, and it is not humane policy
10 throw impediments in the way of their
migration. They should be carefully pro
tected, and be made to fulfill their reason
able contracts, and then respectable parties
will engage them and incur the large ex-
pense of their transportation and necessary
advances.
1t is for their comfort and health that
the steamers should call here for fresh
provisions, rather than to make the long
voyage from China without them.
The Articles of the Constitution are re-
terred to as sustaining contrary doctrine
For example, Art. contains a provision
that no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process
of law" This does not refer to seamen
shipped on foreign vessels, neither is it
designed to compel the Court to entertain
jurisdiction in every case of foreigners
calling here, en- route to some other coun-
try.
In the case at bar. neither party is tenn
porarily resident here; and no sudden &C.
casiOn has arisen for trying this cOntro-
versy here.
Mr.. Justice Curtis says, in the case of
Browne VS.. Ducheone, 2 Curtis, G. G.
Rep, That in the absence of proper legis-
latiou this country United States) aud in
England, Courts of Justice have exercised
the power of determining in what cases
and to what extent it is the viii of the
nation not to extend to foreigners or their
property the municipal laws which in
similar cases govern our citizens.
He cites the case of the schooner Ex-
change, r. Cranch, ll6], in which it was
decided that a public armed vessel of
Sovereign at peace with the United States
is not within the jurisdiction of any of our
tribunals while lying in port of the
United States.
He adds in the same decision, that the
29th Section Of the Collection Act of
1899, q Stat. at large, 64S), authorized
the seizure of any vessel which, having
arrived within the limits of any District
of the United States from any foreign
port or place, should depart or attempt to
depart before making report or entry. A
vessel arrived in the River st. Mary's,
whose waters belonged in common to the
United States and the King of Spain;
she was not bound to the United States, |
but was undoubtedly within the limits of |
its collection districts and fully within the
words of the act. There could be no |
doubt of the power of the United States
to compel an entry, if it had seen fit to ex-
ert it. But it was held that such an as
of jurisdiction was not intend.
ed and that the seizure was not lawful.
The Apollan, Q Wheat, 1862.
This is the case referred to by Vattel, Vol. 2,
Chap 8, Sect. l03, where after saying that dis
putes arising in the country of the forum between
/ stranger and citizen, or between two strau-
gers should there be determined. He adds that
he defendant has general right to have the dis
Dute heard by the tribunal of his domiciie-
Story, Conf Laws, q 532. Sal, 542.
In the case OF bark HAVANA" Sprape 402.
he Court says 3" This is libel against British
'essel by British subject domic ed abroad In
uch case the Court may exercise jurisdiction,
nut it is not bound to do So"
MIR. Justice Story says in the habess corpus
ase Of Harvey We. Richards, Mason, iO9
That Courts Of Equity ought not to be the in
truments Of injustice and that it in n given case
UGH would be the effect Of its inlerpostion. it
,ught to withhold its arm." This principle Is
applicable to the present case. 1t is not denied
hat injustice will be done innocent parties. but
t is coutended that there is a legal compulsion
o do so at this time and place. There is GER
ainy no statute as applicable to this case, and
be authorities cited do not refer to case pre-
isely like this. Massachusetts has her own laws
which regulate the course of Judicial proceedings
nd the principles which should govern her
;ourts but she is not the sovereign power of
be country, and her decisions might very pro-
ably be different from the Court Of the United
itates, which has the only responsibility in rela-
ion to offences with other countries
The question in this case is was there any le-
al cause of restraintH Our law recognizes the
alidty of the contracts under which this view
as held. and that imposes a restraint if the party
ioIates the contract. Now in this case, he was
seklng to evade his contract by going ashore on