The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-02-28
A CHINESE CITIZEN.
Chung WA claims the Hight 10
Eand- Progress OF the injunction
Suit.

of w. IL. Castle on behalf Of Chung
Waa vs. Jonathan Austin, Minister
of Foreign Affairs. was resumed
yesterday, at = p. M, before Chief
Justice Judd. The complaint filed
in the case rccitcs that Chung Waa
is now in China, that hc is n citizen
of the Hawaiian Kingdom by natur-
alization, that he wishes to return to
the Islands, and that he is restrained
from 50 doing by the attitude of the
Minister of Foreign Affairs in re-
fusing him return passport and in
denying him permission to land
without such passport. All Of which
is contrary to the rights and privi-
leges of the defendant as Hawaiian
citizen and the Minister is requested
to show cause why he fails to allow
the return of the said Chung Waa.
The order was made rcturnable
Wednesday morning.
The answer admits the allegations
contained in the prayer for an in.
junction restraining the Minister
from preventing the landing Of the
party named, but contends that this
refusal is not in coniravcntion of the
rights and privileges of the said
Chinaman as Hawaiian citizen.
w. II. Castle being sworn testified:
Am attorney for Chung Waa and
also hold his power of attorney,
Chung Waa's nephew also holds
same for cersain purposes. lie
(Chung Waa) went to China with
the intention of returning. A cross.
examination conducted by Mr..
Peterson. Deputy Acknowledgement,
ELECTED that Mr.. Castle had known
Chung Waa ten years. The celestial
origin of the individual is beyond
cavil, His appearance procIaims it.
No earthly grounds for the supposi.
ton that any other nationality enters
into his make up. He had often
talked of the passport, he knew of
the law, and yet he left without the
permit to return. A passport was
refused him unless he complied with
certain conditions. The issuance
of passport was coupled with such
degrading riders as having his
photograph taken and having his
personal charms infinitely cata-
logued. Although he had not been
specially singled out for these tokens
of esteem he declined to submit and
departed on his dignity, which is an
excellent thing to depart on when
one can't get passport.
A document purporting to be the
naturalization paper of the departed
one was then submitted to the Court
who was somewhat puzzled how to
classify it. The ref Isal of the Min
lister to cooperate with the COM
plainant in the joyful home coming
of the lingering Chung Waa was
offered in evidence.
Mr.. Peterson for the Government
advanced that Chung Waa is OF
Chinese parentagc. lie is native
of China. Consequently he is with
in the scope Of the provisions ant
penalties of the Chinese Restriction
Act. lie requires permit to re.
enter the Kingdom. The right OF
return is not personal to citizenship
Citizens who are also voters are re
quired TO secure passports for de
parturc. They must obtain permits
to rc-entcr the Kingdom. 1t ha;
never been contcnded they should
be exempt by reason of citizenship.
Such an exemption is not right in
cident to citizenship. The cases arr
parallel. The Chinaman knew the
law and chose to defy it. The ac
is not directed specially against him
and no good reason exists for ex
empting him from its behests.
Mr.. III. n. Castle, attorney fo
the complainant, replying denied thu
parallel claimed by counsel. The
passport law and hospital fund &C
are general in their terms but TIT
Restriction Act is directed against :
class. If the provisions of the Hos
pital Tax Act were made operative
against certain class only TIT
parallel would lie. But the hospita
tax is general levy on the travel.
ing public. There is no analogy
This is proper case for Injunction
which is designed to remedy iniict
ed wrongs. The law which denies
this Chinaman's return is unconsti
tutional. No law can be passed
conflicting with the rights of a class
This Is class-a class created b,
nature. No considerations of pub
lie policy can apologize for the dis
elimination against this applicant
1t has been held in the Unite,
States that no distinction can b.
drawn between the rights of natural
lied and native citizens. No publ,
policy can atone for q disregard o
personal rights. No matter no,
polite, how profitable, how urgen
such an act may seem, no enactmcn
is worthy of respect which override
class. When doubts exist as t
the construction of law the interest
ed party or the one likely to suffe
most injury from its operatio
should be entitled TO their benefits
And this Court is now asked to dc
l.. Al A. 81.