Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1898-12-13
THE ARGUMENT IS CLOSED.
Continued from Page I.

flying and canceliug all return per.
mits issued previous to the pas.
sage of the statute. In conclu-.
slop, counsel contended that, adj
hitting that Collector General
McStocker was, under the direc.
ton of President Mckinley, fully
authorized to administer the
Chinese exclusion laws of
the United States, and
admitting that Mr.. Brown was not
merely an advisory agent of the
United States Treasury Depart
ment, but an able-bodied and
fully-equipped official of the
United States Government to pres
ent Chinese immigration into
these Misunderstanding these
things the Court, acting upon the
principles established in the
United States decisions cited,
should find that these petitioners
we're being unlawfully restrained
of their liberty in the refusal to
allow them to land in these isl
ands.
Attorney General Smith refer
red briefly to the documents filed.
Facts must be respected, he said
in his opening remarks. The
great fact in this case was the ex-
istence of higher power than the
Hawaiian Government in these
islands. There could only be one
National Government. The New
lands resolution did not deal with
Chinese immigration in general
terms as had been commended.
Nothing could be more explicit or
unambiguous than the resolution
where it dealt with that subject.
Hawaiian citizens had the right of
suffrage under Hawaiian laws and
stated conditions, but the United
States Congress was not bound to
recognize that right with the spe-
cific provisions and condition Of
the voting franchise unchanged.
The suffrage for the territory of
Hawaii had yet to be dealt with by
Congress, but the resolution Of
annexation directly legislated
the Hawaiian Islands under the
Chinese exclusion laws of the
United States. Return permits
issued by the Hawaiian Govern
meDt did not constitute a vested
right. Annexation had been the
leading question in these islands
for four years before the event, so
that there had been ample notice
Of the Chinese exclusion laws of
the United States. Suppose the
United States had a law that no
Spaniard should be allowed to en-
ter it's territory, and a Spauiard
who had lived here before annexa.
ton tried TO gain admission to the
islands ? The Attorney General
argued that he and the Collector
General, and other officials Of the
Hawaiian Government held their
Offices under and by authority of the
Government of the United States.
They were required to do with the
laws OF the United States as we'll
as those OF the Republic of Ha-
wall. Suppose treason were at
tempted or committed against the
United States, would anyone at
tempt to say that, because there
was no United States marshal or
court here, the local authorities
should not be required to take &C.
ton ? The Attorney General
claimed that the only question was
whether the Chinese exclusion
laws of the United States we're
now in force in these islands. II
those laws were in force. the deci-
sion OF the officials charged with
their execution would be final in
all cases that might arise under
those laws.
Mr.. Silliman replied to the At.
torney Generals claim that the
annexation resolution had the
scope of fundamental law. Who
ever heard of a fundamental law
that executed itself ?
Mr.. Robertson replied on other
points. There are surely nothing
80 sacred in acts of the United
States Congress before the annex
alton resolution that they could
not be construed by the courts
here whenever they came up The
Attorney General evaded the point
of the case cited by the speaker.
1t was adduced because it WAS so
very analogous to the case of the