The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-03-26
SUPREME COURT.
THURSDAY, MARCH 24TH, 1881
Before His Honor the Chief Justice
CASE.

ANOTHER CHINESE IMMIGRANT CASE.
On the petition of Chuni Lung, made on be-
half of Chow Beck Git and Wong Kuen Leong,
a writ of habedS corpus was issued on Wednes-
day last, calling on David Dayton to produce
the two last named Cinnamon said to be unlaw-
fully detained in his custody, The petitioners
were passengers by the steamer Septima. The
case was taken at II AM, on Thursday. The
petition is similar in character to those filed last
week on behalf of others, and the return to the
writ differed only from previous ones by the
following passage "And as a matter of fact,
said petitioners and nearly all of said immi-
grants are persons without visible means of
support, and said petitioners are now in debt
for their passage from China to this country and
if allowed to depart before they have obtained
engagements to labor are liable to become a
charge upon the community"
Mr.. Hartwell demurred to the return as to the
suficiency of its allegations, and excepted to the
following avsrments as irrelevant, viz (D that
the men are in debt and (2) that smallpox is
prevalent in this city and interisland traffic is
restricted by the Board of Health.
The Court ruled that as to the matter referred
to in the first part of the demurrer it was of a
private nature and must be struck out. To this
ruling Mr.. Austin consented. The Court further
said that the allegation as to the prevalence OF
smallpox was irrelevant, but that it might be
argued, as also the point as to the men not
having been alleged to have come here as labor
ers or servants.
His Elk. H. A. P. Carter was sworn and gave
\ evidence as to the landing of the immigrants per
Septima by his authority as President of the
Board of immigration, and that he had at the
time stated that they would not be allowed to
leave the reef, except with permission from that
Board. He had written a letter to this effect
but a copy of it could not be found. The land
ing was allowed on the representation of the
Port physician that it was necessary.
Chow Kung Sun was then examined. He was
a passenger per Septima and knew petitioners
and other passengers. He knew that they came
to find employment as field laborers. He knew
this because they said so before the Mandarin
and before an English commissioner and the
Inspector of Emigration who was a Chinaman.
Mr.. Carter recalled said, g / think the letter
stated that they were held by order of the Board
of Health, and would be released ON order of
the Board of immigration, when it was satisfied
that proper security was given"
Mr.. Hartwell then addressed the Court on be-
half of the petitioners. He would treat the mat
ter as one of pure law. He did not deny the right
of an independent nation to exclude objection
able aliens. But if he conceded that the Gov
eminent had the right to restrict the entrance of
immigrants to the Kingdom, or to send them
away, that was far from being an admission that
in the present case they were exercising that
power legally. The Legislature could not dele
gate its power to make laws to another body.
Even if the Ordinance relied on, were held to be
only a bylaw, it could only be made within the
~strictest limits of the authority conferred on the
body promulgating it. There was no definition
of the authority of the Privy Council. The
power to make penal legislation must be ex-
pressly conferred. He commended that these
men were not legally held, even under the Ordi-
nance. 1t says that immigrants coming by
license of the Board So shall not be permitted to
land" These men came of their own accord,
and not by license of the Board. Moreover they
were already landed. The men are ashore, and
the Ordinance could not apply to them.
Mr.. Austin for the respondents, said the argu-
ment was narrowed to one of technicalities. He
denied that the Ordinance was a penal law-it
was in the nature of a police regulation. He
had no doubt of the right of the Legislature to
delegate authority to make such an ordinance. It
must be well understood in any country that we
did not want paupers here, and if. this Board of
immigration allowed such a thing, the King and
the country would denounce their action. The
word s. permission, - in the Statute of 1868, was
strong enough to cover the length and breadth
of this thing. The petitioners were not already
inhabitants of this country. 1t was but as if the
planks of the Septima's deck were extended; and
they themselves had consented through their
agent to such conditional landing.
MIR. Hartwell in reply laid chief stress on the
fact that in the return to the writ it was sworn
that the men had been landed, and that it was
impossible for the Government to say according
TO law, that they were not landed, in order to
make the Ordinance applicable to them.
His Honor said that he had given the subject
much attention already, and would at once state
his opinion. Tn question had come down to
the authority of the Ordinance. He held it to be
a mere regulation and that there was no hard
ship IN complying with it. 1t was clearly a
necessary rule, as if two were admitted uncon-
dIt1onally why not 600 or 2 or 5000 Z? In his
view the men have not been admitted to the |
Kingdom, they are but at the threshold. The
petition would not prevail.
Mr.. Hartwell noted an appeal.