The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-07-20
Afternoon Session.

O'Clock.
Afternoon Session.
The House reassembled at 40 O'Clock
THE CHINESE TAX BILL.
The President announced the following
communication from the Justices of the
Supreme Court:
DEPARTMENT OF THE JUDICIARY, !
July 10, 1861
Hon. J. s. Walker, President of the
Legislative Assembly-Sir: We, the JUS
tees of the Supreme Court, had the honor
to receive on the 18th instant your COM
munication, presumably OF that date, with
the following enclosures:
~ Copy of resolution, to wit: That
the opinion of the Judges of the Supreme
Court be asked as to the constitutionality or
not of the law to impose a special tax on
Chinese before this Assembly takes action
on it,"
o. Copy of the bill in question.
81 Report of the select committee to
which said bill was referred.
The demand made for an opinion by
the honorable Assembly must be consid-
cred to be made under Article 20 of the
Constitution, which provides that the
Legislative Assembly shall have authority
to require the opinions of the Justices of
the Supreme Court upon important ques-
tons of law.
We respectfully submit the following
considerations for the basis of our Opin-
ion:
The subject upon the constitutionality
of which we are asked to pass is not law
but a proposed bill. 1t is liable to amend
ment, and our opinion of the constitution
atty would not apply to the Act or statute
amended, for it would not be the thing
which we had passed upon.
Secendly-If we should now express our
opinion that the proposed Act is cOnstitu-
tional, and it should be enacted and be-
come law, We could not as Court feel
bound by such opinion if in case before
the Court the question should be raised.
In the language of section 824 of the Civil
Code, the Supreme Court shall have the
power to declare null and void any law
which may, upon mature deliberation, ap-
pear contrary to the Constitution. Law
is established in Courts only by the consid-
GEaIIOI Ol dCIudl CdScSs IL 10 COAo4OCl llCC-
essary that both sides should be heard. No
determination is considered satisfactory I'M
less made upon full discussion of reason
and other decided cases, as presented by
competent counsel presenting all sides and
interests. Even if the Court had made a
determination or ruling on point of law,
or upon so grave matter as the constitu-
tionality of a statute, if it should afterwards
be made to appear that the case had not
been fully presented and decided upon all
reason and authority, the Court would
permit the reopening of the question. All
this is involved in the phrase mature de-
liberation" and in the duty of Judges as
interpreters of the law and conservators of
the rights of men.
The law herein proposed would gravely
affect the rights of property, and even the
personal liberty of great number of the
residents of the Kingdom. 1t seems to us
that it presents a strong illustration of the
improperly and injustice of the Supreme
Courts binding itself by an opinion given
to the Legislature on A proposed bill.
We trust that these reasons will support,
in the view of your honorable body, our
declining now to give an opinion pro
nouncing the bill to be either constitutional
or not constitutional
But as showing that we have not been
inclined to avoid a consideration of the
matter submitted, we beg leave, while the
bill is in our hands, to mention some
things we observe in it.
The titleis an Act to tax Chinese residents
and Chinese arriving in this Kingdom ~
for the support and maintenance of indi-
gent and infirm Chinese, and (2) for the
return to their homes of such Chinese who
may be permanently disabled from work
ing. and of Chinese Migrants; but for the
second purpose of the Act, the return to
their home of the disabled and the va
grants, we find no provision made in the
Act itself.
By article II of the Constitution, every
law shall embrace but one object and that
shall be expressed in its title. Here the
title expresses an object not embraced in
the Act, namely, the important power of
deporting people from this Kingdom
Again, the title adds, TO the class INDECENT
and infirm, described in the first part of it,
in the second part of another class, viz.
Chinese Migrants. These are nowhere
mentioned in the Act.
If the Chinese Benevolent Society should,
after the passage of this Act, undertake to
deport INDECENT, infirm or vagrant Chinese,
they would probably be found to be pro-
ceeding on an unconstitutional law; or,
as it is not in the Act, let US say no law at
all. Our present statutes provide for cases
of vagrancy, (see chapter 81 Penal Code).
Is it intended by the title TO depute to a
Chinese corporation the power to deter
mine the question of vagrancy and make
the penalty for conviction Punishment.
We might also remark that the phrase
return TO their home" might lead to a
question as to where the home" might
be.
Passing to the preamble, We venture to