The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1892-01-28
CHINESE CAN'T VOTE I!
So Decides the Supreme
Court.
Full Text Of the Ceoision With the
Petitioners Brief.

lands, January Term, 1892. In
Banco. Judd, c. j., Bickerton
and Dole, JJ. McCully, j. alb
sent.
In the matter of the application of
L. Ahlo for writ of mandamus.
The constitution substitutes the race
status of Hawaiian, American or Euro
pean birth or descent as a condition for
the voting privilege in place of the stat
us of citizenship which was u require
ment under the previous constitution.
A native of China who was naturalized
here and acquired the right to vote under
the previous constitution was deprived
of that right by the PRONUNCIATION of the
present constitution.
The petitioner prays for writ of
mandamus to be addressed to Henry
Smith, Samuel f. Graham and George
N. Shaw, Inspectors Of Elections of
the End Precinct of the 4th District
OF Honolulu, where the petitioner
resides, directing them to cause his
name to be entered OH the list Of vot-
ers for Representatives, which they
had refused to do on the sole ground
that he was of Chinese descent.
An alternative writ was issued re-
turnable January 9th, at which time
the respondents made answer.
Mr.. A. S. Hartwell for the petit
TONER; Attorney-Gene Whiting for
the respondents.
BRIEF OF PETITIONERS COUNSEL.
The sole question is whether the
petitioners Chinese birth and des-
cent preclude him from voting.
l. The Constitution of 1887 does
not pretend to state all the rights
and privileges of Hawaiian subjects,
but on the contrary in its 10th Arti-
Gle expressly declares that all laws
then in force "shall continue and re-
main in full effect, until altered or
repealed by the Legislature such
parts only excepted as are repug-
nant TO this Constitution. All laws
heretofore enacted, or that may here
after be enacted, which are contrary
to this Constitution, shall be null and
void"
This means that all the civil, po-
litical and legal rights of Hawaiian
subjects are neither based on, nor do
they originate with the Constitution
of 1887. That Constitution leaves in
full force all the statutory provisions
including the provisions secured by
the Constitution of 1864 which are
not 'repugnant" or contrary" 10
its provisions.
In the Constitution of 1887 the
Sovereign renowned the absolute
veto power, and the power of APP
pointing Mobiles and dismissing Cabi-
nets, and limited the exercise of his
public acts to those which his Cabi-
net should advise and consent to.
But no private rights of Hawaiian
subjects were destroyed. BY the
law always in force since this coun-
try had Constitutional Govern
ment, no mans right can be taken
from him except by educ process OF
law" | submit that as the petit
toner had the right to vote under
the Constitution of 1864, that right
cannot be taken from him by any sub.
sequent statute or Constitution, and
that it has not been taken from him.
His rights were clearly fixed by law
"Every foreigner so naturalized shall
be entitled to all the rights, priv.
leges and immunities of an Hawaiian
subject. "-Section 433, Comp. Laws
This Act was amended in the Acts
of 1887 and 1890, but not word o.
the above quoted sentence is changed
The Constitution of 1887, in re-
quiring voters to be "0f Hawaiian
American, or European birth or des
cent" does not refer to those wht
then had Constitutional, statutory
and vested right to vote.
1t is one thing to enlarge vestei
private rights, one thing to direct thu
manner in which they shall be exer
cised; it is another and differen
thing to deprive one altogether O.
such rights. That, l submit, ough
not to be inferred or implied by tn
language used in the Constitution o
1887.
2. This Court held in Kekaula'
case, that as conviction in 1882 TO
felonious cattle branding did not un
der the laws then in force disqualif,
one from voting, the disqualification
imposed by Article Is of the Consti
tuition Of 1887, of one "who shal
have been convicted of Feloniou
Cattle Branding" did not disqualif
KekaulA.
The language of the Court in tina
case was explicit, in its recognition
of right to vote existing under tn
Constitution of 1864, viz:
"()-The specified prescriptio
in Article IS of the Constitution {
1887, making a conviction for tn
felonious branding a disqualification
from civil rights cannot be apple
to instances of this offence con
mitted previously to the date Of thi
Constitution, for it would be er POI
fdcto legislation.
(2)-If Kekaula now lies undo
disqualifications, it must be pursuar
to the provisions Of Article 70 of Il
Constitution of 1864"