The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-11-05

Inc CuOW DICK OlG Case W LAW
1850 held that immigrants could be
constitutionally required by the
Board of immigration to enter into
labor contracts or else give bonds that
they would not be charge upon the
community, and that while on the
quarantine grounds, before complying
with the orders of the board, they
were to be considered as 'merely de-
tanned on the Threshold" That de-
cision was based on the police power
of the Legislature to prevent pauper
immigration.
The present case is based on no
such power, and on no power granted
to the Legislature.
The least which is to be said of the
case is that the plaintiff cannot legally
be punished before he has shown any
intention even to violate the provi-
sions of the law. To mulct him of
his wages now, without even a hear
ing, would be worse than the Rhada-
mainline tribunal did in Hades when
the court of procedure mentioned in
Virgil was first to punish and then
hear Castigat anditque.
The plaintiff was in the country and
there was no pretence that he was
likely to violate any law. He could
not when once here and required to
obey the laws be at the same time
denied the protection of equal laws as
long as he was not even alleged to be
a criminal.
The privilege of the Act of Habeas
Corpus "shall not be suspended, eX-
cept by the King where in cases of
rebellion or invasion the public safety
shall require its suspension" (Consti-
tuition, Art. 5.
No man can renounce his right Of
personal liberty, or his civil rights,
under the laws, for that is matter in
which the community as we'll as him.
self is concerned.
The basis of a constitutional repre-
thus be Ovetthrown.
Criminal and other dangerous clas-
ses, whether they come from treaty
powers or not, can be refused entrance
into the country, but once here they
are subject to and also entitled to the
protection of the laws on which the
government itself is established, and
through which it exists.
The contract ought to be rectified by
striking out the clause relating to the
plaintiffs wages.
Mr.. Hatch having been retained for
the Union Mill and other concerns in
KOhala employing laborers from the
PactOlus, appeared in the case and
replied to Mr.. HartWell, substantially
as follows:
That a distinction must be made as
to what restrictions or conditions
mighe be lawful and constitutional
prior to an immigrants landing upon
the shores of Hawaii, and those which
might be of binding force and effect
after such immigrant had become
resident under the laws of the coun-
try. AS an illustration, he referred
to the practice daily seen in the city
of New York of immigrants from ELL
rope detained by the authorities of
the United States and returned to the
country whence they came by like
authority, and no question being
raised as to the constitutionality or
legislation authorizing such action.
So with the legislation by which the
Chinese are prevented from landing
in California, no question being raised
as to the constitutionality of legisla-
ton which prevents such immigra-
ton. If, however, the immigrant
landed upon the shores of Hawaii it
became very serious question as to
whether he had any right Or author
ity or power to bargain away any
rights acquired by virtue of the Con-
stitutiOn of the country that such
rights belong to every resident
whether citizen or alien, whether the
subject of country with which Ha-
waii has a treaty or otherwise that
after landing in the country there
could be no distinction as to the
rights of one class of people or of any
other in the country.
Upon the question of duress he
argues that there could be no such
thing as duress charged upon de-
PENDANT if the conditions and clauses
complained of were those prescribed
by statute. 1t could not, therefore,
be argued that such duress was legal
duress in the sense of law; and there
could be no admission on the part of
the defendant of any fraud or mis-
representation practiced by others
with reference to the coming of the
plaintiff to the country.
The question whether the COM
plainant lost any rights by virtue of
his contract is constitutional ques-
ton and must be decided upon
constitutional grounds. The contract
labor system Of the country which
provides for penalties for its enforce
ment has been sustained, so, in the
same way, it could not be argued that
it is a penal enforcement of the con-
tract to deduct anything from the
wages for the payment of return
passage. If, however, the immigrant
could not be censtitutionally deported
from the country, then no part of the
wages can be constitutionally de-
Quoted for the payment Of the return
passage of the immigrant.
The question, perhaps, is: Can one
by contract waive constitutional
rights? The answer to that seems
perfectly clear, that no one can waive
a constitutional right after entering
the country.
No decision has been made upon
the point and probably will not be
made until the Justice presiding has
carefully considered all of the points
raised.
Do to YOur Horse as to Yourself.