The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-05-21
Executed in the presence of G. S

EXH1BlT d., -
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
"HoNoLuLu, April 20, 1880.
Mr.. Chock KEN, Honolulu.
"Sir: I have the honor to ac-
knowledge the receipt of your letter
Of this date making application ior
permit for your son All Sung to enter
The Kingdom. 49,,
s.In reply, I beg to state that II An
Sung is entitled to q permit he should
present proof of that fact to bis
Consul General at hong
kong. Since he was born in emma
it should be a simple matter to pro,
duce at Hongkong the RECORD ana
proof of the date and place OF MS
birth while no record showing those
facts is available in this Kingdom.
ST have the honor to be, Sir,
"Your most obed't servant,
sTSigned1 JONATHAN AUSTIN,
Minister of Foreign Affairs"
The Statute upon which this case
is based is Section 6 of the Act to
Regulate Chinese immigration, Oh.
% Of the Laws of 1887, viz:
SECTION 6.
aPermits to enter the Kingdom
shall also be granted by the Minister
of Foreign Affairs, His Majesty's
Consuls- General at Hongkong and
San Francisco, and His Majesty's
Consul or Commercial Agent at
Shanghae, to any Chinese woman OF
good moral character, or to the wives
of Chinese residents in the Kingdom,
and to Chinese children under four
teen years of age whose parents are
residing in the Kingdom, or who &C
company their parents, and to faml-
lies consisting of parents and chill
dren as aforesaid; no charge will be
made for permits granted hereunder"
By the Court.
Upon the pleadings and the Sta
tute what is the petitioner entitled
to on behalf of the Chinaman All
Sung, now detained on board the
ship "Tillie Baker,! The petition
alleges that he having been born in
the fourth year of the reign of Kon
ST, the second moon and the fifth
day, is consequently thirteen years
of age now. This allegation is not
traversed in the return nor is it as
being neither admitted nor denied,
thrown upon the petitioner to prove
it, and is therefore taken to be true.
But it is said for the respondent that
the Court can take no notice OF q
date fixed by the Calendar OF the
Emperor of China. It is true, and
do mott omit the consequently
and take the sworn statement of the
father that his son is thirteen years
of age. But it is further said
that the allegation that he is
thirteen years old is not equivalent
to saying that he is "under fourteen
years of age" The form of words
used does not satisfy me, at the same
time the declaration that he is thir-
teen years of age imports in common
usage that he is not fourteen, and
can only be used seriously in any
other sense but with direct inten.
ton to deceive will not presume
that. The petitioner swears that he
is the father of All Sung, and that
he is a resident in the kingdom, and
this is not traversed. But it is said
for the respondent that it is "par-
ents," that is both the father and
mother of child, resident here, to
whom the statute applies, and that
the conditions are not complete
when, so far as appears in this case
there is only father resident here
I do not read the statute as requir
ing this construction. It speaks OF
"wives of Chinese residents" when
it is presumable that 1t intended the
wife. of a Chinese resident, and Of
sschildren," when we must suppose a
child is intended, in a case where
there is only one child to be per
mitted to land. So parents" is used
in the plural as applying to plural
instance and not prescribing tina,
there shall be two parents in a sin
gle instance. Moreover, it is the
father who makes the application in
this case, the head of the family
The ratio 1sgis, the reason or purpose
Of the law is evidently to promote
the union or reunion of the family
and the construction here given is IL
consonance with that reason. Al
Sung, coming within the prescrip
tions Of the age and of having par
ents resident here, the reason
assigned by the respondent, in hif
letter above, for refusing a permit il
to be considered, namely, that he
could have obtained permit from
His Majesty's Consul General al
Hongkong. But the Statute equally
empowers the respondent to issue {
permit. He assigns the ground thai
at Hongkong the record of his birth
might be produced. It does not ap
pear that there are official records
kept in the various provinces o.
China of the dates Of birth of chill
dren, or that q certificate from such
record could be produced before
the Consul. General at Hongkong
and the Statute does not prescribe
| that kind OF proof and exclude the
proof Of the oath of the parent
which is given in this case. If thu
Statute gives the power to issue thu
permit to the Minister. of Foreign
Affairs, as well as to consuls abroad
why should he not exercise it? WIN
might not the Consul General witt
equal reason decline to give the per
init because another could grant Il
to wit, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, and with the reason beside.