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

At the Request of Mr.. Kinney the
following memorandum of the law
in the Cranstoun case at Vancouver
was prepared by General A. 5.
Hartwell:
In re Cranstoun, Muller and Johns
stone, exiled from the Hawaiian Isl
aud- by order Of President Dole act
ing as commander in chief of the
national forces of Hawaii, during the
prevalence OF martial law upon the
island of Oahu, of the Republic OF
Hawaii, upon suspicion based upon
facts known to the Hawaiian Govern
ment, that they were persons danger
GUS TO the community, and i'm pli"ated
in the rebellion against the Govern
ment.
The facts Oh which these persons
were considered to be dangerous per-
SONS and implicated in the rebellion,
can be shown 10y aft1davits. Such
showing removes all doubt that their
expulsion from the Hawaiian Islands
was based upon public reasons and
not from any malicious motives.
The position aud claim o the Ha-
waiian Government is that there is no
treaty obligation precluding the ex-
puIsion from the country OF any per
sons of any nationality, whenever
martial law is in force, and in the
opinion of the Government such per
Sous have violated the laws OF the Re
public, or rave become implicated in
any plot, conspiracy or treason against
the Government.
The Government, in order to exer-
else it's rights under martial law and
protect the com munity in times OF
actual rebellion, is not req .iTed to
try and condemn such persons prior to
their expulsion, but II the sole judge,
not only of the necessity or propriety
OF declaring martial law, and placing
the country or any part OF 1t under
martial law, but of the course to be
taken in respect of persons who in its
opinion are unsafe lersons to be al
lowed to remain within the country
The provisions of the Habtas Corpus
Act of Charles III, Section IL, "that 10
subject shall~.be sent prisoner beyond
the seas" aud that "every such iln-
prisonment is illegal" and that "every
such person so imprisoned may main.
tain an action of false imprisonment
against the person or persons by whom
he shaIl be so transported" Is not
part OF the law of Hawaii. Any
claim made by those per-ons must be
based On some act WEIGH Is illegal by
Hawaiian law. cit is agreed that to
support an action the act must have
been wrongful or punishable where IT
took place, and that whatever would
be a good defense to the action, If
brought there, mu=t be a good defense
every where" CT. Cooley on Torts,
page All.
II is true that an action may lie for q
tort committed abroad, although in
the country where the wrongful act
was committed, 10 redress CAL he hal;
but sit is well settled that whatever
would be justification for the act
complained of in the place where it
occurred, will be a justification in the
place where the suit is tried. ct.
Smiths Leading Cases, Vol. l, Part 2,
mage 1859. The law in MOstyD ".
Fabrigas, as laid down by Lori Mans
field, is that "whatever is a ju~tIficA-
ton in the place where the thing is
done, ought to be q Justification whe''
the case IL tried;" this decision has been
uniformly followed in the Amer can
and English decisions, CT. Whitford
VS.. the Panama Railroad Company,
% New York, pages AIS and 49,.
The right OF the Hawaiian Govern
ment to expel these persons Is un-
doubted. This Government could
never give up the right of excluding
foreigners whose pre- sence they might
deem a source of danger TO the United
States" Mr.. Everett, Secretary of
State, to Mr. Mann, December ID,
1872 HNOr will this Government
consider such exclusion of American
citIzeus from Russia necessarily a
matter OF diplomatic complaint to
that countfy;h ibid. every society
possesses the undoubted right TO de-
termine who shall compose It's mem
beers, and it is exercised by all nations
both in peace and war. A memorable
,f us4T
in time of peace was the passage oil
the alien law of the United States, III
the wear of 1885," Mr.. Marcy, SecTe-
tary of State, TO Mr.. Fay, March y,
1856. &C There can be no DOUBT
that IL (tbis power) is possessed by all
nations, aud that each may decide for
itself when the occasion arises de-
mandiug its exercis+i !oiu- Inc
coutIoI of the people within its limits,
and the right to expel from Its terri
tory persons who are dangerous to the
peace of the State, are too clearly
within the essential attributes OF Q
sovereignty to be seriously contested.
Strangers visiting or snj"urnlng Il q
foreign country voluntarily -uomll
themselves to its laws auh customs,
and the municipal laws OF France
authorizing the expulsion of stranger
Ia not of euch recent d tie, nor has the
exercise of the power by the Govern
ment of France, been so infrequent
that sojourners within her territory
can claim surprise when the power IL
nut i'm force - Mr.. Fish, Secretary 81
STATE. to Mr. Washburne, September
II. 1869. "The power of -xpelliul
Foreigners (nbnoxiousl ia one incideui
to sovereignty;" M. Fish, Secretary
Of State, to Mr.. Foster, October Ia
1873 THE admission that, as ina
Ith- Mexicanl constitution now stands
and il Interpreted, foreigners VINO
rpuder themselves harmful or once
tionabIe to the general Government
must EXPECT to be liable to- the eXer
else of the power adverted to, even n
time of peace, remains, and no goot
reason is seen for departing from that