The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-12-13
ElOQuenc0 in Chinese HabeaS
Corpus Matter.
The FINE POINTS INVOLVED
Attorneys Address the Chief Just
ice-The Principal Contentious
Fully Aired.

| tice Judd in chambers yesterday. The
petitioners were represented by ]. A
| Magoon, r. D. Silliman and A. G.. NJ
Robertson. Acknowledgement Smith
presented the argument for Collector
| General McStocker, the respondent
Mr.. SilHman began the argument fo1
| the petitioners. 1t had been the policy
of the United States, he said, to make
no interference instanter in the laws OF
a territory, newly annexed. Previous
to annexation people invested money
in accordance with the laws in exist
ance at that time, and which were still
in existance. Congress had yet passed
no laws for the government of this
country. The resolution contained all
that had so far been done towards
Raw making.
With the annexation of foreign terri
tory, Congress had always provided
special laws to meet the peculiar condi-
tons of that particular territory an
ne1ed, and so, Judging by precedent, it
would be with Hawaii. If enforced in
part, the laws of the United States
must be enforced, as a whole. Mr.. Nc
StOcker, he said, was not in the en-
ploy of the United States Government,
but in the employ of the Hawaiian
Government. from which he received a
salary and power was vested in him
and he was authorized to enforce not
~ To- Of no Init cd hrtf "a
laws of the Republic of Hawaii; there
fore, without any authority, without
any law on which to stand, Mr.. Nc
Stocker has forcibly detained these
United States port. The shipping laws
were not in force here. In proof of
which, ships flying foreign flags were
permitted to ply between the ports of
San Francisco and Honolulu. These
men had complied with all of the laws
permitting them to enter this port and
therefore could not legally be. deported
therefrom.
Mr. Silliman contended that Mr..
Brown, Chinese inspector, had come to
Honolulu in an advisory capacity,
without any authority to enforce the
restriction laws. He added further that
the latest law regarding the restriction
of Chinese, passed in 1898, compelling
all Chinese in the United States to pro-
cure certificates of residence within six
months of the passage of the act, If en-
forced here, would result in the depor-
tatlon of every Chinaman on the ISL
ands
In the afternoon Mr.. Robertson con-
tinued the argument for the petltlo-
ners He endorsed Mr.. Silliman's argu-
ment regarding the lack of authority Of
Collector McStocker, maintaining that
Congress must pass an act creating the
necessary machinery for enforcement
of laws, before authority for execution
could be granted
Mr.. Robertson made his principal ar
gument on the point of construction Of
the Chinese proviso in the annexation
resolution. claiming that it should not
be construed to have any retroactive
expressly state whether a law is in
tended to have any retrospective opera
ton. otherwise time and again the
highest courts have refused to give to
the statute the retrospective effect. The
Newlands resolution did not show that
any such operation was intended.
Mr.. Robertson cited the case of a
Cinnamon who lift the United States
four years before the passing of laws
requiring a certificate of residence. The
Chinaman came to Honolulu TO live.
Recently he returned to the United
States and, without any certificate, was
admitted on the ground that no law
should have a retroactive effect.
On the case in hand, these men had
complied with all of the laws of Ha-
wall, but Mr. McStocker had refused
them admission because they had not
conformed with laws which had gone
into effect (if they had gone into eff
fect) since their departure from the ISL
andS.
Attorney General Smith answered
the contentious of Mr.. Silliman and
Mr. Robertson Mr.. Smith said there
can be but one National government
and that government must be supreme
We must put aside all sense of natural
justice There were no retrospective
laws which could not be passed by a
legislature, effecting vested rights.
however unjust. This was National
question. between two great countries.
and we as a port of the United States,
must comply with its laws and assist
in their execution. The wording of the
resolution expresses itself with all pos