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

after that time, they are liable to
pay a double duty.
The want of stamp does not
make the contract invalid. But we
must consider the matter by the
terms of the submission as if the |
contract was now offered in evil |
dence. 1t is unstamped. The OBJ
ject Of the law was to obtain revenue
Tor the Government. The Stamp
Act requires a stamp of 81 on con-
tracts between masters and servants
for labor, and 81 for each year and
part of year after the first. The
duty to be charged on each copy
and to be paid by the employer. In
the case before US the Government
is the employer. Shall the Govern
ment pay duty owing to itself!
We think the question answers it.
self
Judgment for the plaintiff
F. M. Hatch for plaintiff, D. L.
Huntsman for defendant.
Honolulu, March 5, 1891.
DISSENTING OPINION OF DOLE, J.
It is my opinion that the contract
In this case is not enforceable for the
reason that it is not contract be
tween the parties. 1t is, in brief,
contract between the Hawaiian Gov
eminent and the defendant, in which
the latter substantially agrees to
labor for such master or masters as
the Hawaiian Government shall
select, although this purpose is skill
fully yelled in language which dwells
somewhat conspicuously upon the
guarantee of the Hawaiian Govern
ment to furnish the defendant with
employment. The contract binds
him to accept such employment as
the Hawaiian Government may as
sign him to, in other words,to accept
such master as the Hawaiian Gov
eminent may select for him, and if
he objects, to abide by the decision
of the Bureau Of Immigration, a
bureau of the Hawaiian Govern
ment.
On the back of the contract is en-
dorsed an agreement between the
Board of Immigration and the Hilo
Sugar Company dated over two
weeks after the original contract, by
which the defendant is handed over
to the Hilo Sugar Company and
they stipulate to carry out the GOV
enants made by the Board of Immi-
grafton in favor of the defendant in
said contract. AS matter of fact
there is no such contract, the original
contract being between the Hawaii
an Government and the defendant,
who is not party to this agreement,
assigning him to the Hilo Sugar
Company. SO we have before rs the
case of a laborer held for service I'M
der contract, penalty enforceable,
if enforceable at all, to masters with
whom he has never contracted; but
he has come into their hands, with
out having the opportunity of choos-
ing his employers, by process sus-
piciously similar to that by which a
Honolulu hack, horse and harness
are hired out to driver. The fact
that the laborer receives proper
wages for his work does not take the
case out of that condition of involun.
tary servItude or semi slavery which
is inconsistent with our Constitution
and laws, and with the general tenor
of the decisions of this court, with
one or two solitary exceptions.
The case of Mott & Go. vs.. Kama
hele "A Haw. 14) is, admit, distinct.
ly opposed to the above view, but ]
believe that decision to be wholly
erroneous. That was not, however
as evident case against personal
liberty as the one before the Court
as the plaintiffs were the original
contractors, and having sold their
plantation they brought the suit to
compel their laborer to work on the
J plantation they had sold, he having
agreed by his contract to work fol
their assigns in case of sale. But
in the case before the court there il
no privity whatever between the
parties; the plaintiffs are the pur
chasers of the defendants contract
: at cost from the Hawaiian Govern
t ment; this is think the clear com
mon sense view of the transaction
In spite of the strenuous avoidance o.
any appearance of such meaning IL
t the language of the instrument.
3 1t sometimes happens that in thu
] final settlement of a legal question
4 the best law is found in a dissent
t ing opinion. This is / think th'
a case in Mott & Co. vs. Kanahele, an.
: l desire to quote briefly from the dis
8 senting opinion in that case of MI
: Justice Judd.
v "The words of Section 1417 (Civi
d Code) above quoted, ANY persol
S may bind himself to serv
) another means that he may bin
y himself to serve an individual VIII
r is ascertained and known to the Ia
= borer at the time of making his cor
It tract, or who could be ascertained b
i the laborer If he made inquiry
o This section does not authorize
l. man to make contract to serv
It one who is wholly unascertained, c
3, who is to be ascertained indepenc
Q emily of the servants will. Th
it policy of our institutions and law
e forbid the making of such col
tracts" (p I'D
e There is no enactment of th
4 Legislature that will compel ma
n to work for another or his assigns
Z Up. 49,
n If man could be passed fror
one to another, like a chattel, by a
'r assignment of his contract, it r,
l. duces him at once to chattel, an
4 this is form of involuntary serv
i tude which, though for a Unite
e period, is, nevertheless, repugpant I
IS the policy of our institutions an