The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-12-22


then a resident of China, was engaged
by l.. Aseu, defendants agent, to
come to this country and work on a
sugar plantation for SIS month, that
prior to his leaving China, the defend
ant obtained permit for him to enter
this country, one condition of which
was that one-fourth of his wages was
to be deducted until $75 had been
accumulated, and that this money
was to be returned to him upon his
leaving the Kingdom. When he ar
rived in MahukOna, he was told that
he must e. ecute a written contract
with defendant for three years, and
that one fourth of his wages should
be deducted monthly until $50 should
be accumulated, which money was to
be used to pay his passage back to
China at the expiration of the three
years. He was also required to assent
to the other provisions of the Act of
go. The agent told him further that
if he did not sign the contract he
would not be allowed to land, but
would be sent back in the same ship
to China, and as. the ship was imper-
fectly supplied with water and pro-
visions, the defendant, believing that
he would otherwise be exposed to
great hardshipandp perhaps starvation,
signed the contract under protest. The
bill further says that the plaintiff had
not done or agreed to do anything by
which he could or should forfeit the
rights secured by the Constitution
and laws to all persons within the
kingdom, and that the requirements
of the permit We're unconstitutional
and void, and further, that for the
reasons stated he was deceived and
misled into leaving China and COM
ing to this country. The bill prays
that the contract be declared void, or,
as alternative relief, that it be re- |
formed by striking out the stipula- |
lions of which plaintiff was only in |
formed after his arrival in the Hawai-
ian Islands.
The stipulations of the act of 1890,
referred to above and inserted in the
permit and contract, are those pro-
viding that the laborers term of resi-
dence shall be restricted to three
years; that he shall only engage i'm
agricultural labor; that if found out
of employment he may be arrested
and deported to China; that one
fourth of his wages shall be deducted
until $75 is accumulated; that he
shall not be entitled to exercise the
rights of Hawaiian citizen as to the
term of residence or employment;
that he shall be subject to all rules
of the Board of Immigration now or
hereafter to be made; that the pre-
sentatiOn of the permit shall be con-
sent to its terms, and that any laborer
1eserting shall be subject to the ordi- ;
nary penalties provided by the law (
'Or such cases. ,
After reciting in full the facts and
oleadings from which the above alb
'tract has been made, the decision
proceeds as follows:
The central point of the controversy I
aised by the bill and demurrer is the 1
question whether under all the cir {
the retention by the
defendant of the plaintiffs wages as $
tated, is legal. The permit more r
han authorizes it, it compels it. and =
he law enacts that the presentation
f such permit for admission into >
Hawaiian territory shall be consider I
d to be q consent by the holder +
hereof, to all it's terms. The plaintiff
y his written contract agrees to such +
of his wages and the statute T
1890 requires it. Clearly the issue l
J narrowed down to the question as =
the constitutionality of the provi- .
on of law requiring this action on Il
ne part of the employer, which is the
Die authority for the insertion of the ]
0ndltlon in the permit and contract. Y
or reformation of the e
0ntract alone would not remedy the | n
latter, for the plaintiff would still be G
1bJect to the retention of his wages u
nder the terms of the permit, and Ii
le wages already retained would
)ntlnue to be withheld under the
tme authority, while if he should be
ltirely freed from his contract, he is E.
i'll required by the permit to keep It
nployed in agricultural labor sub n
ct to the alternative of arrest, i'm Ii
rlsonment and deportation to China N
found out of such employment; in CO
hlch case the funds already accumu- r
ted out of his wages would be appro- "
lated, regardless of his wish in the h
atter, to the expenses of such de- -
,rtation, or forfeited. g
The object of this retention of 10
ages, as set forth in the statute and te
affirmed in the permit and con- WI
act, was the creation of q special It
post to be returned to the plaintiff: 90
!y upon his leaving the kingdom. hr
is necessary therefore to consider as II
part OF this provision, the condition pa
Iating to his leaving the kingdom: eV
is condition third of the above att
pulation, in which we find that the vo
sintif consents that if he shall ph
found out of employment dur tn,
the term of his residence ins
this Kingdom, or shall be engaged on
any other employment than that h.,
agricultural laborer, or shall be 20 20
md In the Kingdom after the expi- VI
ION of his term of residence, he Ple
" be arrested and held in custody the
til an opportunity occurs to return hel
n to China; aud condition fourth of
'Vldes the additional penalty for Sh,
rklng in other employments than
1t OF agricultural laborer, of forfeit
of his special deposit; this of
lrse the plaintiff also consented to 4
accepting the permit. for
further examination of the statute
question shows provision in Sec salt
4 IL, whereby persons admitted the
D the Kingdom under this Act who mel
nsgress the conditions already con- bee
cred and several other regulations anv
II be guilty of misdemeanor and NOT
subject to fine, imprisonment and fan,
ortation to China. tS SL
therefore appears that under the 'n n
.1,,A-l L \ -