The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1899-03-14


sumsd fa knoe fts msanlns ~
~ofdt ana ihs rules - gfammaf TIE
Nofi lmm STATION means the act II
immiaftl.ug and 90 immisfais ls ~
come n.u . coun - which one Il
not = nhiisr, and IA shloh one has ~.
acquitted retidsnrs ~ domicll. Tho
act ~ immigration u accomplished
When The foreigner ssskins nss
homo. Hrit comes into the ocuntry
Af,,r be hoe GAINED a residence. With
the rights incident thereto. a return to
the country Of HE choice, follosins a
temporary absenee. Il not regarded a.
q scCcni oct % Immigration
AS Illustrative " the fact that there
he clear distinction between coming
Into a trLgtry for the fret time and
returning 10 { after a temporary alb
1 serce. \ distinction based essentially
upon rights grgairel by domicils,
call particular attention 20 the case Of
Lau Ow Rev agt United States, la L.
IS, a.. In tiis care u was held that
Il tAe provision In section q of the Chin
ese restriction act OF May q, 1882, AS
amended by The Get OF July ., 1854. re-
lamring every ChiEsse merchant coming
in,o this country 10 procure and pro-
lduce a certihCste from the Chinese Gov
eminent. did not apply 10 Chinese mer-
lchaats already doniciled In the United
states, who, having left the country for
Temporary yCrpOsee, amino reverend
seek % .e-entcr Il on their return TO
their business and their homes. Mr.
,chiet JuA.icr Ful or, speaking for the
Court. said, page CT:
The section by its terms declares
that every Chinese person other than
laborer, who may lie entitled by said
treaty or this act 20 come within the
United States. shall obtain the per
mission OF and be Identified as so en-
titled by the Chinese Government, or
OF such other foreign Government of
which at the time such Chinese person
shall he subject the permission and
identification in each case to be evil
denced by the certificate described.
But Chinese merchants domiciled in
the United States, and in China only
for temporary purposes, amino rever-
tendi, do not appear 20 us to occupy the
predicament of persons who shall be
about to come TO the United States.
when they start on their return to the
country of their residence and busi-
ness. The general terms should be
limited TO those persons to whom Con-
, sress manifestly intended to apply
them, and they would evidently be
those who are about to come to the
United States for the first time, and,
, therefore, might properly be required
to apply 10 their own Government for
, permission TO do so. as also to so iden-
tify them as TO distinguish them as be-
longing 10 the classes who could prop
erly avail themselves of such leave.
But by general International law,
!. foreigners who have become domiciled
, in a country other than their own, &C
quire rights and must discharge duties
, in many respects the same as possessed
!, by and imposed upon the citizens of
that country, and no retriction on the
footing upon which such persons stand
, by reason of their domicile of choice.
, or commercial domicile is TO be pre-
sumed; while by our treaty with China,
Chinese merchants domiclled in the
United States have; and are entitled
, to exercise, the right of free egress asd
/, ingress, and all other rights, privileges
and immunities enjoyed in this coun-
try by the citizens or subjects of the
most favored nation
This case recognizes that Chinese
! who become domiciled in this country
acquire certain rights with which no
unjust interference is 10 be presumed.
A provision directed in terms 10 all
|. Chinese about TO come into the United
States was therefore construed so az
, not to apply to Chinese returning TO the
. United States, although, in fact, a per-
Leo, sr haI nil flf
without coming into this country. In
|. other words, an alien resident is not an
alien immigrant. Under our alien i'm
!, migration acts 1t has been held that an
, alien who has resided in this country
. without becoming naturalized and who
.. departs with the intention OF return
, ing, Is not to be deemed an immigrant
. upon his return, although he was an
. alien immigrant when he first entered
. the country. Isl T. r., 275; SO F. r.,
437.)
Applying this wholesome doctrine TO
. the case submitted, the Chinese who.
under the former Government OF the
Hawaiian Islands, became domiciled in
. the Islands, acquired certain rights,
among which was the right To leave the
, Islands for a temporary purpose and
|. return. II is not TO be presumed that
. Congress, which recognizes the right Of
. such Chinese TO be and remain in the
, Islands, intended 10 interfere with the
, incidental right OF returning 10 the
, Islands after a temporary absence.
, Chinese laborers have been for years
, absolutely prohibited from coming into
, the United States; yet all the time We
, have permitted and now permit Chin
, ese laborers lawfully within the United
, States to leave this country for q tenn
, porary purpose and return.
, Accordingly, in view OF the manifest
, injustice Of interfering with a right in
, cidental to lawful residence in the
, Islands, the words no further immi-
|, grafton should be construed so as to
, apply only to actual additional immi-
, grafton into the Islands, namely, the
, coming of Chinese into the Islands for
, the first time after annexation and not
, to the return to the Islands of Chinese
, who have a lawful residence there and
are simply exercising the recognized
, right of returning after temporary