The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-05-07

Art. II declares every person has the right to
DE secure from all unreasonable searches and
seizures.
Art. Il. Each member Of society has a right
TO be protected by II, III the endowment of his
life, liberty and property.
This argument was abandoned. at the hearing
81 this case and rightly 50. for none Of the pro-
Visions Of the Constitution. which Is a law
between the Governors and the Governed or q
compact between the citizens Of a country as To
how they shall be governed Will initiate against
the rights Of that Government to prohibit or
restrain foreigners, that Is TO say people who
are not members of the community. to enter mo
the territory.
TIL Sovereign may forbid the entrance az
ms territory either to foreigners in general, or to
certain persons, or for certain particular mr.
poses, according as he may think it advantaoeous
10 the state There is nothing in all this. that
does not flow from the rights of domain and
sovereignty every one Is obliged to pay respect
20 the prohibition, Vattel. Law Of Nations.
Book ID. Chap. ., Sec. "a. Since the Lord of
the Territory may, whenever he thinks proper.
prohibit IL being entered. he has no doubt n
power To annex what conditions he pleases to the
permission Nattel, Book ID, Chap. x. Sec.
100.
In the passenger cases 9TH Howard. All the
Judges of the. Supreme Court Of the United
States did not doubt the right of the General
Government To prohibit or restrain the entrance
II Immigrants into the country, and three of the
Judges were Of the opinion that the power had
been reserved To the Individual States. The
majority Of the Court were Of the opinion that
the authority in question had been surrendered
to the General Government and therefore that
the law Of the State Of Massachusetts, in this
regard, was unconstitutional, as being in conflict
with the rights Of the Federal Government.
Mr.. Justice Woodbury.. III that case, makes the
following remark. The conduct of the state, as
"a matter Of right, l. the only question to be
decided by us. and may be IL very different one
from its expediency. Every sovereign State
possesses the right to decide this matter for
itself. provided 1t has the power to control or
govern the subject. Our enquiry therefore
/ relates merely to that power or right in a State
and the ground now under consideration, to
support the exercise Of it, Il her authority to
prescribe terms, III a police view, to the entry
into her boundaries Of persons, who are likely TO
become chargeable as paupers. and who are
aliens" It was Justly said ut the argument that
the United States Il is free a country as this,
aud vet they have, very recently, sought, by
reviewing their treaty with China, to retake for
themselves the right to regulate and restrain the
advent of Chinese into their country. Now we
have no treaty with China, and the provisions
OF our Constitution, which we have alluded to.
are very similar to the provisions Of the Ameri-
can Constitution.
But 70 pursue this line Of argument further
would seem supertiuous since it would be
merely to refute the arguments which have been
adduced 20 support q point, which has been
abandoned but / cannot pass the subject ny
without abiding To- the opinion Of Chief Justice
Allen III Re Wong SOW ON HGJeds Corpus 3rd
Hawaiian DIS. with whose opinion, III that case.
I most fully concur.
Ii Wong Sow has % right 10 "a discharge. all
on board under similar contracts have the same
right, and SIX hundred people here. without
means of support. might be q serious evil. not
only III raising serious diplomatic questions.
but in disturbing our domestic peace.
But It l. said that the Ordinance j. with
ont authority because the Legislature have no
right 10 delegate their authority To make laws To
the Privy Council. This l. true but If we ex-
anime the Acts and the Ordinance together, we
md no confusion Of authority.
II Is said that the Ordinance in question Is
not IN pursuance Of this law. That it would
be q refinement Of irony 20 say that such an
ordinance II 20 promote and encourage the
introduction Of free immigrants But ii appears
To- me that there l. NO provision IL this ordinance,
that II not III favor 81 the immigrants seeking
labor. To provide "a man, or "a body of men.
with suitable lodgings. for Il reasonable time. so
that they may not be thrown ashore. houseless
and destitute, to become IA prev to the designing.
IN Il country, whose language and law they do
not understandable provide them with interpre-
tiers and officers to see that they are not imposed
upon, would seem To he an encouraging thing
nor can l see how their case would be made
better by their being left to shift for themselves.
II Is said that they are obliged to take the wages
offered and cannot seek for themselves. Certainly
It would be the height OF imprudence, in a police
point Of view, TO allow u large body of men,
ignorant of our language to be ranging through
the country. on the pretence Of seeking labor at
higher rates than employers feel justified in
giving. When the demand IS in excess of the
supply, wages rise, and when the supply IS
greater than the demand. wages fall. and to
allow immigrants 20 come in and say. .- we
Will not take work unless Il higher rate OF wages
Is given us. than the circumstances warrant. and
unless those wages are given. we will not work
at all. l. 20 say, that II Is necessary to allow Il
horde OF Migrants to take possession Of the
country, who must live by plumber or by
begging. Certainly the first clause i'll the Ordi-
nance Is not contrary TO the rights of man no
one would claim that any community ought to
be compelled to allow a quantity of people to
land without inspection. The second likewise
only designates the place, where they may be
landed. The third has nothing To do with the
immigrants, but has only to do with the ship.
The fourth no one can say Is not reasonable,
for II l. made IN the interests of the public
health, and recent experience has demonstrated
its utility and indeed its absolute necessity.
The fifth has already been commented upon and
shown to be for the protection of the immigrant;
and the sixth is of the same nature whilst the
seventh provides that those not seeking labor
shall give satisfactory evidence that they will
not become Migrants or charges on the COM
munity. Certainly this Is not onerous or I'M
reasonable. The sovereign authority has decreed
IN Legislative Assembly to the effect that the
Bureau Of immigration shall superintend the
Introduction of immigrants. tSess. Laws of
1861 above quoted.) And that the said Bureau
Of Immigration shall make rules and regulations
20 control immigrants, that they may admit into
tins Kingdom rs labOrers, (see Sess. Laws of
1865 above quoted which seems to me eauiva-
lent To saying. that those laborers may enter the
country, whom the Board Of Immigration NAV
permit so to do and that the said Board OF Immi-
grafton IS authorized 10 make rules and regula-
lions for their admission. The enactments are
10 the effect, that such persons NAV enter the
country upon those conditions and upon none
"1her- II cannot be supposed that the Legisla-
'ue can enter mlnutely into all the particulars
which may render il expedient or necessary tn
exclude individuals from the country or to DELAY
or RESTRAIN Their entry Suppose. for instance.
the ponce Of q country had good reason to
know that the persons. sought to be introduced
were OF a turbulent and unrulv character and
belonged, in fact 10 the criminal classes II
would be singular indeed If they should be