The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-03-18


Passed first reading by title and re-
ferred to the Printing Committee.
Hanuna InquIsitIve.
Rep. Hanuna propounded the follow
ing questions to the Attorney-Gen-
eral:
1. How many policemen are there
in each of the judicial districts of
Maui?"
2 What is the monthly salary of
each?"
second Reading of Registration Act.
The Registration act was brought
up in second reading by title.
Rep. Robertson said that the main
question involved in the bill was the
principle of the bill. The committee
thought that the only way to test the
ACCESSIBILITY of the law was to give it
a trial for two years If at the end of
that time in was found to be inadvis-
able, it could be repealed or amended.
1t was very important however, that
a fair trial should be given the law.
The principal objection was that
such a law would be irksome to the
foreign element-in fact TO the bulk
OF the population. In place of being
irksome it would be a great help in the
matter Of collection of taxes. 1t
would also facilitate the law regarding
licenses, besides enabling the authori-
ties to keep track of all immigrants,
whether here for work or other pur-
poses The detection of crime would
also be facilitated.
Once registered, person would not
be required to register again until
changing place of residence. This
did not seem to be very much of
hardship.
Tourists and Travellers Exempt.
Tourists and travellers would be ex-
empt from the provisions of the pro-
posed law from the fact that it would
apply only to those persons residing
here for three consecutive months.
Minister Smith said that there had
been very strong objections to the bill
in 1892. 1t had been set down as a
relic of old European monarchy; it
was both injurious and oppressive.
We have to be governed by the
conditions existing" said Minister
Smith. Certain systems of registra-
ton were in force already but these
had not been found obnoxious. Reg
istration before voting and other sys-
TENS were referred to. 1t was not
necessary that the proposed law should
be Objectionable or hard. The main
purpose of the law was Identification
for the collection of taxes, the detec-
ton of crime and the enforcement of
the laws in regard to immigration
Something like $4,000 was probably
lost each yer through the difficulty of
Identification.
A great deal depended on the man
ner of enforcement of the law, whether
it should become obnoxious, oppressive
and hard or otherwise.
All wo, All Yo or All Ho-which
Rep. Hanuna thought the law would
work well if it would preVent.a gentle
man by the name of All Wo calling
himself All Yo at one place, All Ho at
another and All something else at still
another place, to suit his own conVen-
fence. This had been done before and
1t was very probable that it would be
done again. If the law was calculated
to stop all such jugglery then he was
in favor Of it.
The men attending to the registra-
ton would have a sad time, for their
memories would be at all times taxed
to the utmost. The names might be
remembered but the faces would prove
a Japanese puzzle. All Wo might
shave his straggly beard and NOUS
tache and be transformed, for conven-
fence, into All Yo He might have a
piece of his ear taken off through an
we're case of smallpox. This might
facilitate his becoming transformed
into All Ho. If there was a failure in
the law, Rep. Hanuna thought that it
was to be found in the place he had
pointed out.
Rep. Richards moved for the adopt
ion of the committee report, after the
second section had been read. The COM
mittee had recommended certain
changes which he thought proper.
Rep. Robertson remarked that the
member who had just spoken was under
a misrepresentation. The bill under
consideration was the only one before
the House. This was the substitute bill
which the joint committee had submit
ted at the last session.
Rep. Richards replied that he knew
the changes made had improved the
bill. and if they were in the bill he was
fully satisfied.
Upon reaching section 8 of the bill
Rep. Robertson called attention to an
omission Consideration of the Sec
ton deferred.
About Certificates.
In the twelfth section Rep. Bond
wanted to know if it was a proper con-
dition that every one should have his
certificate with him at all times in order
to show it to any registration, police OF
judicial officer who might demand il
of him. This seemed to be in the ma
ture of a hardship.
Rep. Robertson explained that such
condition and others, rendering the law
strict, had been introduced to prevent
its evasion by certain classes.
Rep. Winston expressed the opinion
that should the provision be struck out
the bill would prove absolutely useless
Moved for the passage of the section.
Rep. Hanuna said that in case of the
passage of section II the people con-
cerned would have to carry their GER
tif1cates with them 1t was very much