The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-11-05
A GREAT LAW UAoE.
An Important Constltu-
tiOnal Question.
The Validity Of the Act of 1890
Relative to the Introduction
Of Chinese Iaborers
Questioned.

Yesterday before Mr.. Justice Dole a
very important case was argued and
submitted. The case was that of
Chong Chum VS.. Kohala Sugar Com
pany. The complainant asked to
have his labor contract cancelled or
amended upon grounds set forth In
the complaint, substantially as fol-
lows:
SUBSTANCE OF BILL OF COMPLAINT.
Plaintiff came to Hawaii from
China on defendants promise to pay
him $500 a month for work on
sugar plantations; but on arriving
here, he was told by defendant that
he must make a contract with defen-
dant, allowing defendant to keep
back $500 for return passage of
plaintiff, and that the contract must
contain such other stipulatiOns as the
Act of 1890 requires.
And plaintiff was also then told by
defendant and by the sheriff that he
would not be allowed to land unless
he so contracted, and would be sent
back to his native country.
That the ship on which plaintiff
came was then not supplied with
water and provisions for a return
voyage to China, and plaintiff was
told by defendants agents and be-
lieved that if he were then sent to
sea, he would suffer and perhaps die
for want of food and water, and there
fore he signed contract under pro-
test.
That such statements were not
authorized by the Constitution and
laws of the Hawaiian Islands.
That the plaintiff was misled and
deceived into leaving China, and that
the contract induced and made as
aforesaid is void and ought to be so
declared or else to be rectified to con-
form to his previous agreement.
The demurrer to the complaint was
general but specified in accordance
with the rules of Court the grounds
proposed to be raised as follows:
1.-Whether or not the complain
ant was entitled to any relief as the
grounds of complaint are covered by
the Law of 1890, being Chapter g. of
the Laws of 1890, relative to the in
PRODUCTION of Chinese laborers, as to
whether or not said law is valid
under the Constitution of the Ha-
Waiian Islands.
2.-As to whether the terms in
serted in the contract as to return limit
and as to occupation and deduction
from wages are obligations imposed
by law, and therefore do not consti-
tute duress on the part of the defen-
dant.
Mr.. w. r. Castle, counsel for the
defendant, opened the argument for
the demurrer and in support of the
law of 1890. He read the opinion of
the Court to the Legislature of Nov.
S, 1890, relative to legislation to re-
strict the time of residence, occupa.
ton, legal rights, ETC., of Chinese
laborers coming to the country
(Which opinion is well known
to our readers, having been pub
lished at the time), and argued
that the opinion of the Justices rem
dered at that time in favor of the
legislation of the class covered by the
Act of 1890 would be respected by the
Court in the present case, and, upon
the strength of that opinion, the Act
of 1890 must be sustained. He also
referred to the habeas corpus matter
of Chow Bit Git and others, reported
in the 4th of Hawaiian, in which the
Court held that restrictions and regu-
lations imposed in pursuance of law
quarantine, having arrived upon the
Chinese steamer, were legal, valid
and constitutional. The Court, pro-
ceeded upon the theory that every
nation has full power and authority
to protect itself from general immi-
grafton, and that a restriction which
would not allow Chinese immigrants
to become residents of the Hawaiian
Kingdom, unless they made labor
contracts or by some other means,
gave lawful assurance that they
would not become Migrants, was
constitutional and valid. He argued
that the reasoning in that case and
others decided by the Supreme Court
upon similar points should logically
apply to the case in point, and that
the law should be sustained. A dis
tinction, however, was made as to
those regulations and restrictions
which must be complied with prior
to landing in the country, and any
regulations and restrictions which
might be valid and binding upon the
immigrant after landing and becom-
ing one of the general inhabitants of
the country. He also argued that the
Court in no case would interfere with
the operation of the law, and that it
would not declare the same invalid or
unconstitutional unless the necessity
to do so arose from the case in hand !;
that no point not directly raised could
be decided; that the present case
simply raised the question as to the
obligation upon the laborer to submit
to a deduction of SIS in small amounts
made from month to month in his
wages. Also that if, in the opinion
of the Court, any part OF the law
might be construed as unconstitu-
tional that other portions would be
allowed to stand, and must not be in
torfcro5 with, that if the Court
should hold the requirement as to de-
ductiOn from wages demonstrations
al, this would also absolve the
surety upon the SO bond to deport
the laborer at the expiration of his
term from his obligation.
Mr.. Hartwell, for the plaintiff,
argued as follows:
|. The contract was made either
under legal duress or a mutual mis-
take as to the plaintiffs censtitu-
tional rights. In the former view his
contract must be cancelled; in the
latter it must be so rectified as to
strike out the stipulations which could
not legally be required.
2. The plaintiff, after arrival at Ha-
wall, could not be required to sign q
contract releasing to his claim to any
part of the agreed wages. A writ of