The Daily bulletin., 1890-11-10

Rep. Brown held that the object
of the bill was to make labor cheap.
The raising of the price in Califor-
MIA was caused by the shutting out
of Chinese. The hon. Mobiles argu.
ment worked against his own posi-
tion. This money was not to come
out of the Chinese, but out of the
planter.
Noble Baldwin said it would be
foolish to pass provisions that would
make the law imperative, that would
prevent planters taking labor under
the conditions imposed. Some Chi
nese merchants told him this morn
ing they did not believe we could
get any laborers under this bill, un-
less indeed it was provided that the
planters should pay their passages
both ways. There were some severe
restrictions in this bill, and, il a
bond was to be included, it should
not be higher than those proposed
by the Representative from Homo
lulu.
should be sufficient,as it was not the
Noble j. M. Horner thought SIS
planter that was going 10 run away.
The planter could not even arrest
the Chinaman, but it had to be done
by the Government. Sec. ii pro-
vided sufficient penalties against
deserving Chinaman.
In, Il l., a.
the 5000 fine in Sec. IA was going
to come from, if the Chinaman ran
away within six months. The planter
could easily afford to let him run
away, if the planter was going to
get the amount of the bond paid
back to him. The Chnaman would
rather work on the reef year than
pay 5000 if he was arrested. The
bond should be at least 5000.
Noble Macfarlane held, in reply
to Rep. Brown, that, without the
proposed restrictions, the Chinese
companies could keep the China
men away from the plantations. 1t
was news to him, what Noble Bald
win had said, that Chinese were not
likely to come here under contract.
If they were not to come under con-
tract they should not be allowed to
come at all.
Noble Baldwin said there was no
bill before the House to introduce
Chinese except under contract.
Noble Macfarlane said the bill had
been emasculated in all its essential
features. 1t was doubtful if the
deportation provision could be en-.
forced, as they must rememt er that
the Supreme Court had only given
an opinion and not a decision, and
he doubted whether, if some lawyer
sued out writ of habeas corpus in
case of any deserter, the Govern
ment would send the man away.
There was therefore all the more
reason for the other proposed res
trictions.
The motion for 5000 was lost.
Noble Widemann moved to strike
out the bond. Lost.
Passed at $75.
Rep. Brown moved an extensive
amendment to the section, making
the engagements under the bond
more specific.
Rep. Hookano understood the
amendment to say that if the planter
could not produce the particular
man for sending away he could pro-
duce substitute. He was opposed
to this because there were at least
$1,000 Chinese in the country, and
it would be easy TO get substitute
while the other man remained in
the country. Thus the country
would be over-run with Chinese.
Noble Widemann wanted to make
the bill decent. Respectable it
would never be. If deposit of 25
percent was required from the China
man, in the Savings Bank or other
Government receptacle, so that at
the end of his contract he would
have little fortune to take back to
China, there would be no trouble
about sending him away. He moved
that the words relating to deposit
of $75 be struck out, and a provi-
sion inserted for deposit of 25 per-
cent OF the laborer's wages.
Noble j. M. Horner said that
when he spoke of substitute the
other day, he meant that the planter
should furnish the substitute, but
that the Government should pursue
the other man. Thus they would
have two Cinnamon to send away in
stead of one.
Noble Macfarlane objected to the
provision for substitute. 1t would
be easy to get sick Chlnaman will
ing TO go home. He believed the
proposal Of Noble Widemann would
be an effectual bar TO desertion of
laborers. He moved that the sub
stitute provision he struck out.
Rep. Brown consented.
Noble Baldwin would not hold 10
the substitute since there was so
much feeling about it. The 20 per-
cent deposit would be all right il
the Chinese would come under such
provision, but they were only
wasting their time in placing condi-
tions IN the bill that would prevent
laborers coming. The deposit WAS
always u sore point with the Iapa'
naua