The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-06-06
Local Registration Laws Still in
Force Here.
SO SAYS SUPREME COURT
Decision Coverins Several Applica
tions-Seope OF Authority OF ths
Chief Customs onsosr.

The Supreme Court has handed down
n unanimous decision in the case of the
application OF l. II. Spencer. g. ".
Macfarlanc and \. M. Brown for writ
of msndamuS against =. u. McStocksr.
Collector-Gcncral of Customs. In the
decision the following points of Law
are brought out:
The ColleCtor-Gcncral OF Customs iS
not subject to- the directions of the
Minister OF Finance in the matter of
the registry of vesscls-
The refusal of the Minister Of Fi-
nance to inquire of the representative
Of the nation to which n forcign-built
vessel belongs. whcsnCr any legal i'm
pedimcnt exists to her registry. dos
not prevent the CoIlector-Gcncrsl at
Customs from proceeding to register
the vessel as n Hawaiian vessel.
The registry laws of Hawaii Wcre
not abrogatcd Immediately upon the
annexation OF these Islands to the
United States.
The matter in question Was for ap-
pliCations for writs of maad2mus to
compel the respondent 10 Issue ecrtih-
Gates OF registry foF al. vessels Fsu-
tcrpc. wTlscott ana Fails of Clyde.
The Hawaiian registration laws are
part % the municipal legislation of
these Islands. which was to remain in
force temporarily by tac terms of the
Joint Resolution of Annexation The
main purpose of registry laws is ;o en-
courage the trade. navigation and ship
building of the country caactinE such
laws-not to imprcss vessels with y
national character ur to cntitlc them
to protection as national vessels Con
grcss manifested mo- particular intcn-
tion to abroEatc our registry laws i'm
mediately upon annexation. On the
contrary. by containing Hawaiian Gus
toms relations with the United States
and other countries. u manifested =
general intention tn continue our reg
is;ry laws Il certainly did not intend
to- aanul the registers os all vessels
then registered under our laws. The
registration of other vessels thereafter
would no; make them American ves-
sells or cntitIe them To- the privileges
of American vessels.
In our opinion. the dcnisis % the
respective petitioners sole ownership
are sufficient in form under TN. cir
cumstanccs of these cases. and the de-
crces OF the Circuit Judge overriding
the motions 90 quash the returns are
affirmed
The situation uow g.. that f the ap-
plicantk for registration Uf vessels
comply with Hawaiian LAWS they w!ll
secure the fsg. 1hc Attpraey-GencTal
may intervene vith challenge Df oEn-
crship claims.
Kinney. Blllpu a. McClaashan. for
petitioner in Eatcrpe case: Thurston &
Carter. for petitioner In wiiisuDtt and
Falls of Clyde cases: AttpTnsy-Ccnsrai
Coopc- for respondent In all cases.
In the matter % the appeal from as
s.ssmsnt of the coal hpss; of the .. u
and l.. Co. the Supreme Court has
handed dpSa decision stating that
We consider that q is properly with
In tho exemption from taxation. being
fairly necessary for the rcaspnshi.
maintenance os the railroad
"a structure. with the machinery es-
ssntiai 20 i;s working. used exclusively
foT taking coal from a ship and dis
charging IL into the cars % the q. u
and l.. Co. 90 BE- delivered TO psIrrhas-
crs along the line % the company. -
properly within the exemption from