The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1889-09-11


listed in years past. The more intel
ligent Chinese themselves also must
see and acknowledge that had such
freedom of immigration continued
for twenty years more, it would
have resulted in inundating these
islands with their countrymen, and
in driving away nearly all the for
eign residents now here. Forum
ately, the gate was shut by legisla
tive enactment, which, if faithfully
carried out, will not only stop all
increase In their numbers, but will
result in a gradual decrease below
their present number, which may be
estimated at $1,000, out of total
population of $4,000.
No Australian, American Or Euro
pean city, colony or State has had to
contend against such an invasion OF
Chinese, as this little kingdom,
where one in every five of the entire
population is Chinese. Yet Aus
tralia, with comparatively small
Chinese population, collects a poll
tax of fifty dollars on every new
conner. The United States has gone
a step farther and passed law for
bidding the entry or landing of any
Chinaman, unless he belongs to the
literary or mercantile classes.
Recently the Supreme Court
of the United States has affirmed
the validity of this law, and
thus established It's full consti-
nationality. The Court held that
"the power of the government
to exclude foreigners from the
country whenever in its Judgment
the public interests require such ex-
clusion, has been asserted in repeat
ed instances, and never denied by
the executive or legislative depart
ment."
In conclusion the opinion says:
''The power of the exclusion of for
eigners being an incident of sover-
eighty, and belonging to the govern
ment of the United States as part
of whose sovereign powers delegated
by the Constitution, and right to
its exercise at any time when in the
Judgment of the government and war
is existing, the same necessity in a
less pressing degree may arise when
war does not exist, and the same
authority which adjudges the neces-
sity in one case must determine it in
another"
Hawaii's exclusion act has there
fore a strong precedent to sustain it.
Beyond this exclusion of Chinese,
no country has yet taken any pro-
hibitory step. The question now
arises,-Is it practicable to go be-
yond this, and declare what those
Chinese who are now in the country
and possess vested ri ghts, shall do,
and shall not do, and at the same
time be sustained by international
sentiment and usage? And if prac.
ticable, is it wise? Let us consider
the circumstances in the case.
It must be remembered that con
siderable portion Of the Chinese now
here were imported as laborers with
the consent and permission of the
Hawaiian Government. Is not the
government, then, in some sense
their protector and guardian-and
as such, is it not obligatory on it tc
either assist them in returning te
their own country, or, falling to &C
cept its offer, is not the latter bound
to provide law compelling all I'm
employed Chinese to accept work OF
rice or sugar plantations, on such
terms and for such periods as may
be advisable and for the best Interest
of both parties, the employer and
employed?
| Here, then, are the strong points
to contend for and accomplish:
I. Enforce the restriction act anc
forbid all Chinese to land, who have
not already been resident here, and
engaged in lawful mercantile bust
ness.
/ 2. Compel by law all unemploy
ed, idle and vagabond Chinese to b.
registered and to engage in rice anc
sugar plantation service, under sucl
rules as will secure justice to both
parties.
\ These provisions require no con
stitutional amendments; and it il
1 questionable whether it would be-
wise to tinker with our Magma
Charta, if Legislative enactments
can be made to accomplish the same
ends. Make these the platform o.
the coming election, and Legis
lature elected for this object cannot
fail to provide remedy for a griey