The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1891-04-08

|
is now unwilling to fulfill it, is not
by that fact changed into contract
of involuntary servitude forbidden
by the law. If the contract is lawful
and constitutional in its inception, it
does not become illegal or nnconsti
tutional at the option of one OF the
parties to it.
The unwillingness or the incap
acity of party to contract to full
fill it are not fatal to it's validity. Ii |
the Constitution prohibits any ser
vice which has become for any rea
son or without any reason against |
the will or inclination Of the con- |
tractor, its intent to effectuate this
should be expressed in language not
| doubtful. The Master and Servants
Act declares that such contracts may
be lawfully entered into. And it is a
| Fundamental rule of construction
that 6 courts are never to declare an
act void unless the nullity and in
validity of the act are placed, in their
| Judgment, beyond reasonable doubt.
A reasonable doubt must be solved
in favor of Legislative action and the
act sustained" Cooley Cons. Linn,
p. 1872, and cases cited. "The opposi
ton between the Constitution and
the law should be such that the
Judge feels a clear and strong con
viction of their incompatibility with
each other"
Fletcher vs. Peck, Cranch, 1873
&c It is but decent respect due to
the wisdom, the integrity and the
patriotism of the Legislative body by
which the law is passed, to presume
in favor of its validity, until its
violation of the Constitution is
proved beyond all doubt"
Ogden vs.. Saunders,12 Wheat, 270.
Our labor-contract system is not
slavery. Reference is made to an
expression IN the Slaughter house
Gases, 16 Wall, ". If 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 to 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 say that if
the master and servants law shall be
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 afford ample
ground for the expectation that nc
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, and that the law
which authorizes it is not repugnant
to the Constitution.
l The further objections urged on
!. the part of the defendant why he
I should not be compelled to work fol-
7 the Hilo Sugar Company, are e.
J that the Board Of immigration haC
no right or authurity to make such
: contract in the name of the Ha
4 waiian Government; ~ that the
a Hawaiian Government is not bound
+ by said contract; and 81 that the
! Board of immigration exceeded its
J. authority by undertaking that the
7. said Mioshi should be exempt from
9 all and every kind of personal ia,
{, and have the full, equal and perfec
/ protection of the laws of Hawaii
l. We dismiss these objections will
the remark that there is nothing il
n the submission to show that thu
B. Hawaiian Government does not con
10 slider itself bound by the contract, o.
10 that the authority of the Board O
B. Immigration to make the contrac
n in the name of the Government il
70 disputed; also that it is not claimed
that tho guarantee of exemption
10 from personal taxes has not beer
D. observed, or that the protection o
a the laws of Hawaii has not been ex
ct tended to the defendant.
g. Objection 6 is "that said con
II tract could not be assigned withou
BE- his consent" If the contract O
labor in question has been Rssigne,
u without the laborer's assent, seri
a. Gus question would be raised. Blu
II it is not claimed by defendant
10 counsel that the contract has bee
y formally assigned. An inspection
II, of the contract shows that it has no
" been assigned. It still subsists as
d contract between the Hawaiian Go,
u eminent and the defendant, and tn
Or defendant is found with employ
'1 ment as an agricultural laborer
De with the Hilo Sugar Company whic
IS engages to pay the stipulated wage
~ and to perform all the stipulation
Is and agreements to be performed b
the Board of Immigration in fave
ry OF the laborer, the Board reser,
I'D ing the right to cancel the contrat
IN for any cause to be deemed sufl
le, cient by the Board. In any suit t
"a compel the laborer to fulfill his Ell
gagement to work, the plainti
ed would have to be. in correct practic
at the Board of Immigration of til
he Hawaiian Government, and the su
of of the laborer would have to
r." brought against the same party.
nd Objection Z is "that neither til
he Board of immigration nor the H
nd waiian Government Is perso
er- within the meaning of Section 141
of the Civil Code authorizing labt
IN contracts"
IN, Section 1424, part of the labc
or L. h.