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


prior residents thereof, and secondly
Chinese who are allowed a limited resi-
dence in this country under certain re-
Strictions
The crucial question in this case is
whether Congress intended in the reso-
luton that the clause forbidding fur
ther Chinese immigration should have
a retrospective operation and render
invalid these permits. Before discuss
ing this question, it becomes necessary
to say that up to this date, so far as
We know, the report of the Commis-
sioners appointed under the resolution
to recommend to Congress such legis-
lation concerning these Islands as they
shall deem necessary and proper, has
not been presented to Congress, nor
has any act been passed by Congress
providing for the government OF the
newly-acQuired territory, and more
especially, no legislation in order to
carry into effect the existing laws OF
the United States respecting Chinese
immigration has been enacted.
Hawaiian laws as to the character OF
the Chinese immigrants allowed to en-
ter this country are totally at variance
with those of the United States. The
United States allow immigrants of the
mercantile class upon certain condi-
tions, and exclude laborers, except up
en- certain conditions. BY Hawaiian
laws, merchants are forbidden to enter
this country for the first time, while
iaborers are not only allowed to emf
CRATE to this country for limited resi-
dence, but they are greatly desired by
some for agricultural labor
| have no difficulty in holding that
Hawaiian authorities have no power
now to do any act which, by granting
of new permits will allow future immi-
grafton of Chinese to this country,
since my view is that Hawaiian stat
utes on the subject are ipso facto re-
pealed by the passage of the Joint Re-
solution.
Whether the United States laws can
be enforced in this country without
further legislation of Congress is a very
different question. A strong argument
is made that there are no officers con-
stituted by law in this country to ex-
ecute the United States statutes. We
are not conquered country, and there
fore not subject 70 such orders and de-
crees as might be made by the con-
qaeiing power. We have been absorb
ed by the United states by agreement,
and for the convenience of Congress
and until it has had sufficient time to
provide for our government, our exist
ing laws remain in full force, unless
they are inconsistent with the resolu-
tiOn.
But it is contended by counsel for
petitioners that if it be considered for
the sake of argument that the United
States statutes regulating Chinese i'm
migration are in force in this country
and that Hawaiian customs officials are
authorized to execute those laws, new
ertheless the clause of the resolution
forbidding Chinese immigration into
this country was not intended to apply
to cases of individuals (Chinese) who
have arrived at the port of Honolulu
and are seeking to obtain admission
into this country by virture of the per-
missions given them by the statutes of
Hawaii, granted prior to the transfer Of
sovereignty OF this country TO the Unit
ed States. The injustice and oppres-
sion which would be visited upon these
petitioners by being refused 10 land.
when they came to this country rely
ing in good faith upon the permission
granted, is apparent to everyone.
| am ayerse to hold that the Congress
of the United States deliberately in
tended to inflict this injury.
Before proceeding with the discus
sion of this question whether the resO-
luton has a retrospective effect, l wish
to refer again to the anomalous posi-
ton in which i am placed. By the
Constitution of Hawaii it is provided
that Retrospective laws shall never be
enacted" There is no such prohibi-
ton court of the United States, but
considering that this case should be
decided as a court of the United States
would, in my opinion, decide it, fol-
low the rule of construction adopted in
the United States, that a statute should
have a prospective operation unless its
terms show clearly a legislative inten-
ton that it should operate restrospec-
lively The rule is stated in % Ency
of Am. e Eng. Law, p. 44S, as follows:
1T may be laid down as fundamen-
| tai rule in constituting statutes so word
| ed as to admit of a construction which
would render them retrospective as
we'll as prospective, that a prospective
| opera only Is ~ ne SifGli- uIAiCoso q
| Legislative intent to the contrary is de-
| clared, or necessarily implied from the
| circumstances of the language used"
In Sutherland on Statutory Construc
| ton, Sec. 463, the author says:
| ''As retrospective laws are generally
unjust and in many cases oppressive
| they are not looked upon with favor
| Statutes not remedial will therefore no
| be construed to operate retrospectively
| even when they are not obnoxious tt
any constitutional objection, unless tn
| intent that they shall do SO is plainl.
expressed or made to appear. Wher'
| the intention as to being retrospectiv.
| is doubtful the statute will be constru
| ed as prospective only"
| The clause of the resolution unde