The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1895-03-27


On general prInciI les IL Is within
the power of the German Government
to make and enforce such decree Of
EXPULSION, Dor can this Government
object, unless the exclusion be en-
forced with undue harshness. The
same pTerOgative was asserted by our
Government in the alien act; aud we
have recently taken measures to ex-
clude paupPTs aud couvicts from our
shores" Mr. BsyaTd, Secretary of
State, to Mr. P-udleton July 9, 1855.
The authorities are uniform both
that the act, If justified by the law Of
the country in which 1t is done, is not
actionable, and further IL is q defe uce
TO SUCH an act that il was done by the
authority of a Sovereign State.
"The law of continental Europe, even
in time of peace, authorizes proceed
Jugs against persons upon mere sus-
p'cion. No alien resident or snjOurn-
ing in these C untries can Complain of
such proc. edinps, for aliens are no
more exempt from them than are sub
iects or citizens. II may be remarked,
however, that in France and on the
continent of Europe generally, the po-
lice authorities have the right aud are
in tn habit of setting on foot proceed
ings against individuals upon susPi-
ciOm merely, and not upon probable
cause alleged under oath. The power
referred to Is, no doubt, sometimes
abused. Citiz-ns of the United States,
however, whether native or natural
lied, who, of their own accord, visit
countries where it exists, must expect
to incur that hazard, u rlrss by treaty
stipuIations they should be placed up
on more favorable footing than the
subjects OF the government whose
agents may commit the abuse. We
have no treaty with France which
provides for such an exemption In Ia
vor of our citIZeus." Mr.. Marcy, Sec
rotary of State, to Mr.. Richter, Feb
ruaTy 81. 1854.
"The general principle is supposed
to be clear that a foreigner, who of his
own accord settles in country, ac-
cepts the conditions and liabilities, in
peace and in war, of a native of that
country" Mr.. Seward, Secretary of
State, tn Mr.. Burton, September q,
1856. MSS. Inst, Colombia.
cit 10 within the prerOgative of each
sovei eign TO punish political offences
i'm his country by aliens, whether such
offenses are seditiOus or violent acts,
or publications melting thereto" Mr..
Bayard, Secretary of State, to Mr..
Jack-on, August 5, 1895.
Whatever may be- The law of Eng
land or the UniIed States on the sub
ject, the law of Hawaii authorizes
martial law and proceedings in accord
ance with martial law, and no for
eivner has cause of complaint If he
suffers the consequence of Its viola
ton.
Resident aliens "can be expelled
whenever their continued residence for
any reason becomes obnoxious or
harmful to the citizens Of or to the
State" Tiedemanu Limitations OF
Police Power, p lab. -.
Phillips vs.. Eyre, O. B 225 (1869)
was all action for assault aud false M
prisonment in Jamaica. Defense that
the defendant was Capital General
aud Governor in Chief of the Leland OF
Jamaica; that divers persons had con-
spired by force to overthrow the Gov
ernment, had broken out in open
reheIffon and committed many burg
Iaries, robberies and so on, and the
civil power had been over powered by
the rebels, and the defendant, with the
aid of the military and naval forces,
had by force of arms ARE ted the prog
ress of the rebellion, and finally that
an Act of indemnity had since been
passed.
The Court, Cockburn, G.. J., said:
fIt appears to us clear that where, by
the laws in other countries, an act
though it would have been wrongful
by our law if committed here, canuot
he made the ground of an action in an
English court. To hold the contrary
would be attended with the most in
convenient and startling consequences
and would be altogether contrary to
that comfy Of nations in matters of
law to which effect should if possible
be given. Thus an arrest and Inn
prisOnmeLt might be perfectly justi-
fled by the law Of q foreign country
under circumstances in which 1T
would be actionable here. 1t would
be impossible to hold i'm such a case an
action could DE maintained in an Eng
lish COURT
1.-THE same reasoning would apply
where an act, though not enjoined, IS
vet authorized aud rendered lawful by
the law of the country where 1t Is
done. There would have been no in
tention to inflIct a wrong in such
case, nor according to the law OF the
particular country will any right have
been iufringed."
The decision in that case was based
on the ground that the Act of indem
nity protected the defendant 1t was
affirmed or error in 1870, III q. 3 IL.
r. l, the Court saying that IN order
to found q SUIT in EnRla for q wrong
alleged to have been committed
abrnad, the act must not have been
iustiti ,ble 10y the law of the place
where IL was done.
A judicial tribunal cannot deter
mine political questions such as that
which is involved in the propriety OF
declaring martial law or of its cnntin-
uaucp. In State Va. Georgia, 6 Wall.
So (1S6S), the Court said that 1.-THE dis
tiucIion between the judicial and
political power Is so generally &c
knowIedged in the Jurisprudence both
of England aud this country that we
need do no more than TO refer to some
of the authorities on the subject. They
are all in one direction, that this
Court has no jurisdiction over ques-
lions of political rights, rights Of State
sovereignty, of politi al juris fiction,
| of government, of the questions of cor
porate existence a. u State"
The preliminary defense in the