The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-11-16

relating constitutional
affirming The King Tong Lee, 4 Haw. 1885,
OPINION THE COURT. BY WHITING.
Appeal points law, by defendant from a conviction,
before the District Magistrate of Honolulu, charge of
iseanor for unawfulv carving on the business laundry
keeping washing hire within the limits of the city of
Honolulu, the not being carried building founded
for such purposes violating Sec 3 Act 4, Laws of 1896
Act Laws of 1896 amends Sec / and of Act entitled
can Act relating Landries and Wash Houses Chap 8,
Laws of 1880
the hereby authorized and empowered
be built and erected the District of Kona Island of Oahu
sufficient number of laundres and washouses and let
the same to persons applying therefor at suc rents ana upon
such the said Minister shall deem advisable And in
like designate and for such buildings
already erected"
Section (amended) From and after date of publication
of this Act who shall the business OF
laundry keeping washing for hire within the limits OF Homo
lulu except such buildings shall be provided for such
accordance with the provisions of Section of this
Act, shall be liable a fine x y
The only change the of effected by the amend
ment of 1896 is in the location of the public aundres be
(Nuuanu rve and it has been removed from that locality
to Iwilei.
The defendant claims that this Act and the Act to which the
amendment unconstitutional and void because
FIRST 1t depves the defendant of the right of trial by
Jury in contravention of Article of the Constitution
Second 1t contrary Article of the Constitution and
deprives defendant of his property without due
process of law.
Third The Act establishes monopoly in the Government
and should therefore be held void
Fourth. The may unfairly be to be attempt
contrary to the spirit of, though not in conflict with
any provision of, the constitution IF the of
the Act that Chinese should carry this
business within the city but that all Hawaiians might,
there could be doubt this point. Is it the
effect of the law? Is it not the intention of the fra
mers of the law
rim The Act leaves the arbitrary discretion of the
Minister of the Interior to designate the buildings to
be used as aundries.
Constitution Republic of Hawaii Article g. Sec 1. "No
shall be subject punishment for oene except
due and legal conviction thereof by tribunal having urisdc
ton of the case"
Sec, 8. "The right of trial by jury in all
which has been heretofore used shall nvioable
except inn Certain of which this bar one)
Constitution, Article s. E'NO person shall be compelled
any criminal be witness against himself;
prved of life liberty property without due process of law
The consttutonaty of the relating and
Washouses Chap Laws of 1880 was tested in the supreme
Court in the of the King Tong 335 and the
held that this Act of the Legislature providing
erection of public landres forbddng the carrying
business of laundry keeping washing for hire within
of three miles from the junction of Nuuan and King
in Honolulu exercise of the police powers of State
with regard to the comfort welfare and safety of society," and
constitutional
And in that the first second, third and points
raised by defendant before the Court fully
and by reference the brief of this defendant and the brief
for the defendant in the Tong Lee case will be that
substantially the same argument made and the
cited to the Court.
The third point upon by the Court in the
long Lee although presented argued and befe the
Court apparently considered untenabe and of that
opinion.
The fifth pont"The Act leaves arbitrary discretion
of the Minister of the Interior designate buildings to be
used aundre In support of this, the of Yick
Hopkins rs T. S. $50 cited; which decided that an
ordinance of San Francisco, California unconstitutional
The ordinance follows:
1T shall be unlawful passage this order
for person persons establish maintain on
laundry within the corporate limits of the city and county
San Francisco, without having first obtained the
board of supervisors except the be located building
constructed either of brick stone.'
The there held that ordinance violates the pro
of the Constitution of the United States it CON
fers the municipal authorities their WILL with
ont regard to discretion the legal of the give
the competency of the applying of the propretv
of the place selected for carrying the business And also
that administration of municipal ordinance for the carving
of lawful business within the corporate limits violates the
provisions of the Constitution the States if makes
arbitrary and Determinations founded differences of
between persons otherwise in similar circumstances"
We do consider this authority reverse the