The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-01-07

whether or not an alien applying for ad-
mission is entitled to enter these Islands.
The Newlands Resolution provides that
until Congress shall provide for the
government of such Islands all the civil
judicial and military powers exercised by
the ofhcerS of the existing government in
said Islands, shall be vested in such per-
son or persons, and shall be exercised in
such manner as the President of the
United States shall direct, and the Pres
ident shall have power to remove said Of
fcerS and ill the vacancies so occaSi oned :;
and, in another section, that the munic-
ipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands,
not enacted for the fulfillment of the
treaties so extinguished and not incon-
sistent with this Joint Resolution, nor
contrary to the Constitution of the United
States shall remain in force until Con-
gress of the United States shall otherwise
vision, those Hawaiian statutes parts
of statutes relating to the Chinese immi-
graion which are not inconsistent with
or help along the United States laws on
the same subject continue in force even
after an extension of such United States
laws to these Islands, and there seems to
be strong ground for the proposition ad-
vanced by of the attorneys who took
part in the argument that respondent
McStocker, as Collector General of Gus
toms OF the Hawaiian Islands, is vested
with power to enforce the exclusion of
Chinese If in fact United States laws have
been extended here. In view, however,
of my conclusion, stated later on, on the
subject of jurisdiction, i deem it unneces-
sary to decide this question now.
spondent j. X. Brown, Chinese inspect
or; The Act of August 8, 1882, relating to
the immigration of aliens Il Supplement
to Revised Statutes p. 300 charges the
Secretary of the Treasury with the duty
of executing the provisions of that act
AND with supervising the business of
immigration to the United States This
last clause gives that official the author
ity to supervise ALL immigration TO the
immigration of such Chinese. If the
clause last cited were construed to apply
only to such immigration as is mentioned
in that Act, to-wit: of paupers and other
undesirable persons, the clause would be
useless repetition. In various appropria-
ton bills passed within the last few
years and up to the present time, certain
sums of money have been appropriated,
under the title of the Treasury Depart
the Chinese Exclusion Act: To prevent
unlawful entry of Chinese into the United
States by the appointment of suitable
officers to enforce the laws in relation
thereto, and for expenses of returning to
China all Chinese persons found to be
unlawfully in the United States
and for enforcing the provisions of the
Act approved May 5th 1892, entitled An
Act to prohibit the coming of Chinese
persons into the. United States"
Dollars. These statutes seem, prima
facie, TO give to the Secretary of the
Treasury authority to appoint Chinese
Inspectors and to the Inspectors so APP
pointed authority, not simply to advise
the Collectors to their duties under the
Chinese Exclusion Acts but to. act them
plicantS for admission.
In Williams VS.. the United States, 16S
United States Ss SSS the Court held that
Chinese Inspector" under appointment by
the Secretary of the Treasury, did not
act under any law that could properly be
regarded as a revenue law" but that The
was appointed pursuant to acts of Con-
greSS appropriating money to be used by
the Treasury Department to prevent I'M
lawful entry of Chinese into the United
States, by the appointment of suitable
officers to enforce the laws in relation
Acts have no reference to the subject of
revenue, but are designed to exclude per-
sons of particular race from the terri
tory of the United States. Clearly, Chin
csc Inspectors, proceeding under the
Acts providing for their appointment,
have no connection with the revenue sys-
tenn of the Government although the eX
ecution of the acts referred to is commit
ted to the Treasury Department"
1t is far from clear, then, that the nee
essary machinery does not exist here for
the enforcement of United States laws re-
lating to the immigration and exclusion
of Chinese But whether it does or not,
the language of the Resolution, as / have
already stated. clearly shows that Con-
sress did not intend that the rule of ac-
ton in regard to Chinese immigration in
TO these Islands should continue as it was
but did intend that United States laws
should without delay take the place of
the Hawaiian laws so far the two
We're inconsistent.
The argument that the provision of the
in the nature of an organic act, intended
as a direction to or limitation upon the
powers of Congress and of the Hawaiian
Legislature hereafter, does not TO
me to be sound. 1t is open to the objec-
ton already mentioned of rendering the
provision in question nugatory. When is
the w-making power to enact this re-
StrictiVe legislation and obey the man.
date of the Resolution? No limit of time
is stated and until the Legislature chooses
to act, the United States laws could not
go into effect. The use of the words up
such conditions are now MAY
HEREAFTER be allowed indicates that
Congress may hereafter alter those con-
ditions now allowed by the laws of the
United States but that until Congress
scribed by the laws NOW in force must
prevail.
on behalf of the petitioners, the deci-
sion in the case of Chew Heong VS.. the
United States, 112 United States $50 is
lied upon in support of the contention
that the Resolution should not be given
retrospective operation as 10 debar
petitioners from entering. That decision
was based very largely upon the fact
there under consideration, felt it its duty
to so construe them, if possible, as not
TO repeal in effect the provisions of a
prior treaty with China. In that respect
the case differs from that at bar, for the
Hawaiian Islands have no such treaty.
The existing United States treaty with
China has been held not to bar just such
legislation as is here contended against.
The decision was also based on the
ground tnat IN the OPINION or the court
the language used in the statutes did not
clearly indicate an intention on the part
of Congress to give the statutes a retro
spective operation and that consequently
they must be held to operate prospective
~ only. The correctness of the rule there
laid down is, as already stated above, I'M
denied, but the fact remains that after
all the Court in this case must. did the
Court in that case, find the intention of
Congress from the language of the instru-
ment which is the subject of construction.
The adjudication in that case cannot
therefore, be of much real value in this
case.
Having held that the United States
laws in relation to the immigration of
Chinese are now in force in the Hawaiian
Islands and that such laws apply as we'll
10 cases where permits were issued prior
TO the passage OF the Resolution as to
other cases. it follows, in my opinion,
that this Court has jurisdiction to
cOnstrue the United States laws or 10