The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1891-04-14


in favor of its validity, until its
violstion of the Constitution Is
proved beyond all Doubt
Ogden vs.. Saunders, IL Wheat. siO.
Our labor-contract system is not
slavery. Reference is made TO an
expression in the Slaughter-house
Cases, 16 Wall, -. IL Mexican
peonage or the Chinese coolie labor
system shall develop slavery of the
Mexican or Chinese race within our
territory this amendment " may
safely be trusted 10 make it void.
The amendment is the 18th to the
Constitution of the United States, as
follows:
Neither slavery, nor involuntary
servitude except as punishment for
crime, whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted, shall exist with
in the United States, nor any place
subject TO their jurisdiction"
We do not hesitate TO ssy that If
the master and servants law shall De
found to develop slavery Of any race
within our kingdom, this Article III
Of our Constitution may safely be
trusted TO make 1.-THE slavery
void. The numerous decisions OF
this Court on this Act sford ample
ground for the expectation that no
form of slavery would be held by the
Court to be countenanced by the
Constitution. We have thus come to
the conclusion that the contract Of
the defendant Is not Invalid on the
ground alleged, sud that the law
which authorizes it Is not rspagnant
to the Constitution.
The further objections urged on
the psrt of the defendant why he
should not be compelled to work for
the Hilo Sugar Company, are o.
that the Board of Immigration had
DO right or authurity 10 make such
contract in the name Of the Hs-
waiian Government: 81 that the
Hawaiian Government is not bound
by ssid contract; and (Sl that the
Board Of Immigration exceeded its
authority by undertaking that the
said Mioshi should be exempt from
all and every kind of personal tax
and have the full, equal and perfect
protection of the laws of Hawaii.
We dismiss these objections with
the remark that there is nothing in
the submission TO show that the
HsEaiian Government does not con-
slider itself bound by the contract, or
thst the authority of the Board Of
Immigration to make the contract
in the name Of the Government is
disputed; also that it is not claimed
that the guarantee of exemption
from personal taxes has not been
observed, or that the protection OF
the Laws Of Hawaii has not been ex-
tended to the defendant.
Objection 6 is that said con-
tract could not be asst gned without
his consent" Ii the contract of
labor in question has been assigned
without the lab0rer's assent, a seri-
Gus question would be raised. But
it is not claimed by defendants
counsel that the contract has been
formally assigned An inspection
of the contract shows that it has not
been assigned. 1t still subsists as
contract between the Hawaiian Gov
eminent and the defendant, and the
defendant Is found with " employ
ment as an agricultural lsborer "
with the Hilo Sugar Company which
engages TO pay the stipulated wages
snd to perform all the stipulations
and agreements to be performed by
the Board of Immigration in favor
of the labOrer, the Board reserT-
ing the right to cancel the contract
for any cause to be deemed suffi-
Gent by the Board. In any suit to
compel the labOrer to fulfill his en-
gagement to work, the plaintiff
would have to be. in correct practice
the Board Of Immigration of the
Hawaiian Government, and the suit
Of the lsborer would have to be
brought against the same party.
Objection 7 Is ~that neither the
Board of Immigration nor the Hs-
Ssiian Government Is q person
within the meaning of Section 1417
Of the Civil Code authorizing labor
contracts
Section 1874, part of the labor
law, recognizes the validity OF con-
tract Of service to company OF in
diyidusls. This point was not al
luded TO in argument and We have
no doubt that the statute allows
contracts Of service with the Govern
ment or the Board Of Immigration
The last objections by the defen-
dant are that neither the contract
nor the assignment are properly
stamped.
The Act relating to stamp duties
passed IN 1876, preseribes that no
instrument requiring to be stamped
shall be Of any validity in
any Court OF this Kingdom unless
the same shall be properly stamped.
Provision Is made for the payment
into court Of the stamp duty to en-
able the instrument TO be used IN
evidence. And that instruments eI-
ec4ted IN foreign countries may be
stamped within three months after