The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1890-11-03

who refuses TO take it or dishonest |
man who takes it.; nor is a person
using threat less guilty, because he
happens TO threaten strong mind
cd man who refuses to yield TO his
illegal conduct.
Noble Cornwell moved that the |
section pass as in the bill. If the
amendment passed it would make it
criminal for him to try to induce his
own son to withdraw from candidacy. |
Rep. Brown moved in amendment
to the amendment that the words
cor of any threat" be inserted
after the word "gift" in the original
section.
Noble Muller said he had good
reasons for Offering the amendment
and he hoped that the House would
profit by his personal experience.
Noble Widemann said that an
offer of blibe was as bad as brib-
cry itself. In the case of the hon.
Noble from Honolulu he had been
threatened before the election to
either withdraw from the ticket or
be forced out of the firm; and after
election he was again offered hribes.
Rep. Browns amendment carried.
/ The bill was passed, TO take effect
Jan. 1, 1891.
Noble Widemann moved that il
be referred to Rep. Paehaole and
himself to see that the versions cor
responded and the sections were
properly numbered. Carried.
THE LABOR BILLS.
The House went into committee
of the whole on the labor bills, Rep.
Paehaole in the chair. The two
bills reported by the commerce COM
mittee were taken as the basis of
consideration, and that of the maj
GRITTY of the committee was ordered
read by sections.
Rep. Bush, on the first section
being read, moved that the commit
Tee of the whole recommend that the
question of the constitutionaIlty of
the bill be referred TO the Supreme
Court for an opinion. He had al
ways held that the proposal TO de-
port Chinese after expiration of their
contracts was contrary to the Con-
stitution.
Rep. Brown seconded the motion.
| Noble j. M. Horner thought that
all doubt of the constitutionality
could be obviated by striking out
all reference TO Chinese, as it was
labor they were after without regard
to nationality.
| Rep. Brown said that it was al
ready settled that any country had
the right to decide what foreign ma
tionalty should he allowed residence
within its bounds. The question in
volved in the bill was different
one, pertaining TO restrictions on the
liberty of persons after admission to
the country.
Noble Macfarlane was in favor of
getting the opinion of the Supreme
Court. What he wanted to ask the
Acknowledgement, who he noticed
was absent, was whether if this
House got an ex parte opinion from
the Supreme Court it would be bind.
ing. In the case of &c lge and Tur-
rill in the late election the Judges
gave an ex parte opinion and then
when the case came before them as
an actually they went right back on
their opinion. Their excuse was
that they could not decide on any
case without having all the facts be-
fore them. He would like to ask
the opinion of Rep. Brown as law.
yer on this point.
, Rep. Brown supposed that if the
Judges found the law was wrong
, they would take their ex parte opin'
, ion back.
} Noble Macfarlane would like tC
know, if this restriction was put II
compelling the deportation of Chi
nese on the expiring of contracts
and habeas corpus was sued out
r would the Court release the subject
t For his part he would propose tt
put in the restrictions whether thu
Court sustained the law or not.
+, Noble Widemann considered tn,
case of Gedge and Turrill was su
| generis, It was All exceptional case
The Judges would tell them that thu
opinion now proposed to be asked
i was ec parte, but still he SHOULD
n like to have that opinion.
Noble j. NJ. Horner said that
u laborer contracting with him unds
this bill would be under his contro
:, until he put him on board the ship
Rep. Bush said the point wa
whether it was constitutional for tn
employer to do that, Or for the shi
e to hold the man while still unde
Hawaiian Jurisdiction.
} Noble Baldwin thought il woul
- be as we'll to refer the matter to tn
/ Supreme Court. 1t was not an In
definite thing, but this bill whic
l. which was TO be referred. Til
D matter particularly in question WI
Z not that which they all recognize
e to be unconstitutional, namely, Ill
interfering with the liberty of PEE
D. sons already in the country, as
m their engaging in trades or business
in but it was whether or not lahore
Or could be deported from the GouRtI
Or after their contracts had expired.