The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-07-16


and admittance TO this
to him refused, and the
process prayed for cannot be execut-
ed legally by the respondent, Mar
shall Wilson.
4. And further that respondent
is informed and believes and SO al
leges that said Lau Cheu heretofore
within the last six months volunta-
rily departed on a vessel, Sonoma,
from this Kingdom for foreign
ports without obtaining a permit to
land or re-enter in this Kingdom
and voluntarily severed his resi-
dence and connection with this
Kingdom, land that he cannot now be
lawfully landed from the vessel
"Transit."
5. And further that Lau Chen is
Chinese within the meaning of
chapter % of the Session Laws of
1887 and chapter go OF the Session
Laws of 1888, and arrived at the
port of Honolulu from foreign
port, to wit: the port Of San Fran
cisco, State of California, United
States of America, on board the
vessel "Transit," on or about July
5th, 1892. That said Lau Cheu
was not upon his arrival and is not
provided with any legal permit or
other sufficient authority to enter
this Kingdom as provided by law,
and is now detained on board the
"Transit" by and refused a landing
in this Kingdom by the Collector
General of Customs and is not law
fully within this Kingdom, so that
the process prayed for by petitioner
could be legally executed by re-
spondent.
Wherefore respondent submits
that the writ prayed for should not
issue.
BY THE COURT:
The single question raised in this
case is whether the Acts forbidding
the entry of Chinese into this King
dom without permits invalldate the
laws of this Kingdom as to such
persons when within its territorial
limits. A person in this case is re-
CURED by.a valid writ of the Police
Court of Honolulu, who is within
our jurisdiction, being on board a
vessel in the harbor of Honolulu,
and is Chinaman without a per-
NIT to land. We answer without
hesitation that there is nothing in
the Chinese Restriction Acts which
excerpts Chinese without permits
who are within the territory of this
country from the authority of our
laws.
1t would be fatal to the existence
/ of government here to hold the con.
trary. EEH
These Acts were never intended
by the Legislature to interrupt OF
interfere with the authority of the
Government within its territory.
In case decided on February %
1892, by the Supreme Court of the
United States, Holy Trinity Church
VS.. United States, I42 u. S. Rep
457, it was held that an Act of Con
gress to prohibit the importation
and migration of foreigners and
aliens under contract or agreement
to perform labor IN the United
States, ETC., does not apply to con
tract between an alien and q reli
gious society for his services as {
minister. The Court say, "It is s
familiar rule that a thing may bt
within the letter of the statute and
yet not within the statute, because
not within its spirit, nor within the
intention of its Makers"
"The object designed to be
reached by the act must limit anC
control the literal import of thu
terms and phrases employed"
In U. S. VS.. Kirby, Z Wall, 1872
defendants were indicted for thu
violation of an Act of Congress
which made punishable the OBJ
structing or retarding the passage
of the mail or any carrier of the
mail. The defendants pleaded tina
they had a warrant to arrest tn,
mail carrier for murder, and thu
Court held that the execution of thu
warrant was not an obstruction o
the mail or the retardIng of a mai
carrier within the meaning of tn,
Act. The Court said, "All law
should receive q sensible construc
ton. General laws should be 81
limited in their application as no
to lead to injustice, oppression or al
absurd consequence. 1t is Away
to be presumed that the Legislator,
intended exceptions to its Language
which would avoid results of thi
character. The reason of the Law
in such cases should prevail over it
letter." The object of the Legisla
ture by the Acts under considera
tion was to CIRCULATE Chinese I'M
migration" and no suggestion cal
be found in the first Act of 1887, o.
any Of the subsequent Acts amend
atory thereof which leads to tn
conclusion that these Chinese with
out permits if within our territorial
jurisdiction were not subject to on
laws. The penalties prescribed il
these very Acts for violations o
them, as for instance for attempt
| inor tn land UUithnuf q xyolfd parDoit