The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-03-28

permit required by the Act, and that a
writ OF habeas corpus was applied tor on
his behalf
The question presented is narrow
one: Has the Legislature right to pre-
vent a citizen of this kingdom from re-
turning to this kingdom
1t is urged by respondents counsel
that the applicant is not citizen OF
Hawaii, although naturalized as such,
because by the Constitution of 1887, be-
ing Chlnaman, he is not allowed to
vote. consider that, although the right
to vote may be taken from the citizen by
the Constitution, his status as subject
still remains. The elective franchise
may or not be bestowed upon all citi-
zens by law. 1t is not natural right
and is subject to statute regulation. For
precedents We naturally look to the
United States, where similar legislation
against the admission of Chinese has
| been in force for some years. In 1888,
Judge Deadly of the United States Dis
| trict Court decided that child born in
| the United States OF Chinese parents, is
citizen of the United States, and when
restrained of its liberty of locomotion
therein, may be delivered therefrom, on
habeas corpus, by proper national
| Court.
In that case, Chin King, Chinese
girl born in California, had gone to
China, and was detained at Portland
OREGON, by the captain on board the YES
sci that brought her to America, the col
lector OF the port refusing to allow her to
land, because she was Chinese and had
no g return certificate,' as required by
the Act of Congress. The learned
Justice having discussed the question OF
the nationality of the petitioner, and
having decided that she was born SUBJ
ject or citizen of the United States, said
By Sec. 2 of Art. of the Constitution
1t is provided: The citizens of each State
shall be entitled to all privileges and inn
munities of citizens in the several
States" '1t has always been held that
the privileges and immunities there re-
ferred to are fundamental; and that a
citizen of one State may at least, under
this provision, pass through or reside in
any other State of the Union for the
ordinary pursuits or purposes of life. The
action OF the collector in these cases has
the effect, and is so intended, to deny
these citizens OF the United States the
right OF free lOcomotion within the same
the right to come into, pass through
or reside IN this State, and is, therefore
contrary to and in violation of the con.
stitutional provision guaranteeing such
right to every citizen" Elk parte Chin
King 35 Fed. Rep. 354.
The case before me differs in only one
respect. The applicant here is natur
allied citizen and our law Compiled
Laws p. 1867 provides that "every for
eigner so naturalized shall be entitled te
all the rights, privileges and immunities
OF Hawaiian subject" 1t is the right
and privilege of Hawaiian to ''come
into, pass through or reside" in any part
of this Kingdom. 1t is a fundamental
right. Chancellor Kent says: "In Eng
land the regular consequence of per
sonal liberty is said to be that every
Englishman may claim a right to abide
in his own country SO long as be pleases
and is not to be driven from it, unless by
the sentence OF the law prescribing ex.
portation or Punishment in the given
CASE
Kent Com. $40.
The right of citizen to abide in his
own country implies the right to enter il
at pleasure.
MIR. Justice Field said in case tried
IN the Circuit Court of the United States
| Az 1907, do W tilc pOSlllOu Ol Tie LIS
trict Attorney, that the restriction act
prevents the re-entry OF the petitioner
into the United States, even if he be a
citizen, only word is necessary. The
petitioner is the son OF a merchant, and
not laborer, within the meaning of the
act Raine a citizen, ,ne law could moi
intend that he should ever look to the
government of a foreign country, for per.
mission to return to the United States
and no citizen can be excluded from this
country except for punishment in crime
Exclusion for any other cause is I'm.
known to our laws and beyond the
power of Congress In re Look Tin
Sing q Fed. Rep. go.
Fortified by such high authority l dc
not hesitate to say that citizen of this
Kingdom cannot be excluded from it ex.
cept as a punishment for crime. The
applicant being Hawaiian subject is
entitled to land in this Kingdom without
permit, and the injunction prayed fol
may issue. A. F. JUDD,
Chief Justice Supreme Court
w. R. Castle and H. N. Castle fol
petitioner; A. P. Peterson for respon
dent.
Honolulu, March 26, 1890.