The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-12-16

| claratory."
| Section 646: "A statute should not
receive such construction as TO make it
impair existing rights, create new obli-
| cations, impose new duties in respect
| of past transactions, unless such plain
| ly appear to be the intention of the leg
islature. In the absence of such plain
expression of design, it should be con-
strued as prospective only, although its
| words are broad enough in their literal
| extent to comprehend existing cases.
Cooley Constitutional Limitations" !"
| p. 455: There is no doubt of the right
| OF the legislature to pass statutes which
reach back to and change or modify the
effect Of prior transactions, provided
retrospective laws are not forbidden
60 nOmine, by the state constitution,
and provided further that no other OBJ
| lection exists to them than their retro
spectiye character. Nevertheless, leg
| islation Of this character is exceeding
| ly liable to abuse; and it is a sound
| rule Of construction that statute
should have prospective operation
only, unless its terms show clearly a
legislative intention that it should
operate retrospectively."
Counsel for petitioners rely upon
| Chew Yeong VS.. United States, report
| ed in 112 U. S., p. 436. The head note
| is this: Courts uniformly refuse to
give to statutes a retrospective opera
ton whereby rights previously vested
are injuriousIy affected, unless compell-
| ed to do so by language SO clear and
positive as to leave no room to doubt
that such was the intention of the leg
islature." This case, the opinion hav
ing been written by Mr.. Justice Harlan,
Justices Field and Brady, only, dis
senting, was decided in 1884. The es-
sential facts of the case are as follows:
A Chinaman arrived in the United
States in 1889, remaining there until
1881, when he departed for Honolulu
and remained there until September
1884, when he returned to the United
States. During his absence the Chinese
restriction acts of 1882 and 1884 were
enacted. AS he had no certificate as
required by those acts, he was denied
admission. On habeaS corpus the case
went to the Supreme Court of the Unit
ed States upon certificate of division
and it was there held that he was en-
titled to enter and remain in the Unit
ed States; and the reasoning of the
court is. that, since by the treaty be-
tween the United States and China of
1880 the Chinaman in question was al
lowed to go from and come to the Unit
ed States of his own free WILL if he was
in the United States at the date of that
treaty, in order to establish his right of
reentry after the restriction acts had
passed. he would have to produce a
certificate of residence" 1t was impos-
sble for him to produce at the time of
his attempted reentry the certificate
required because he hal left the United
States before the passage of the new
treaty and statutes which required as a
prerequisite of his reentering, the
certificate of residence" He had left
the United States before the passage of
the acts which subjected him to the
burden of procuring the certificate. The
court said: "That the legislative en-
actments in question should receive
such construction, il possible, as
would save the right of this Chinaman
to prescribe as the only evidence per-
visions of the previous treaty and give
full effect to the intention of Con-
gress," and Quoting from United
States vs. Kirby, Wallace, p. 1867:
General terms should be SO limited
in their application as not to lead to in
justice, oppression, or an absurd con-
sequence. 1t will always, therefore, be
presumed that the Legislature intended
exceptions to its language, which
would avoid results of this character.
The reason of the law in such cases
should prevail over its letter"
The Court continues:
What injustice could be more
marked than by legislative enactment
to recognize the existence of right by
treaty, to come within the limits of the
United States, and at the same time
to prescribe as he only evidence per-
missable to establish it, the possession
of a Collectors certificate that could
not possibly have been obtained by the
person to whom the right belongs, or
| to the United States upon the ground
| that he did not upon his arrival from
| a foreign port, produce certain GER
| tificate under the hand and seal of a
| Collector and upon forms prescribed by
| the Secretary of the Treasury, which
| neither that nor any other officer was
| authorized or permitted to give prior
| to the departure OF such person from
| this country Courts uniform
| Iy refuse to give retrospective opera
| ton whereby rights previously vested
| ;Continued on Seventh Page.)