The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-01-16

residents thereof, and secondly Chinese who are allowed
limited residence this country under certain restrictions
The question this is whether Congress intended
Resolution the clause orbidlng further Chinese
immigration retrospective operation and render
invalid these permits. Before discussing this question, it be
necessary say that up this date, far know,
report Of appointed under the Resolu-
ton TO recommend Congress legislation concerning
they shall deem necessary proper has
presented passed by
gross providing for the OF the newly acquired terri
tory especially, legislation carry
effect the existing laws of the United States respecting Chinese
immigration has been enacted
character of the Chinese immigrants
country totally with those
United The United States allow immigrants of
the mercantile class upon certain conditions, and exclude labor
ers except upon conditions. BY Hawaiian laws,
chants forbidden this country for the first time
while Iaborers are not only emeate country
limited residence they greatly desired by for
agricultural labor.
I difficulty in holding that Hawaiian authorities
have power do any which, by the granting of
permits will allow immigration of Chinese this
country since view is that Hawaiian statutes the subject
po repealed passage of the Resolution
Whether the United States laws be enforced in this
country without further legislation of Congress is differ
question: a strong argument is made that there
constituted by law in this country the United
We conquered country and there
subject orders and DEGREES might be made
by the conquerng power We have been absorbed by the
by agreement and for the convenience of Con
gress and until it has had sufficient time provide for
government existing laws remain in full force, unless they
inconsistent with the Resolution.
But is conended by counsel petitioners
considered for the sake of argument that the United States
regulating Chinese immigration in force in this
country and that Hawaiian Customs officials authorized
those laws nevertheless the clause of the Resolution
ordding Chinese immigration into this country IN
tended apply of individuals Chinese who have
this port Honolulu and seeking obtain adj
mission into this country by virtue of the pemissions given
Hawaii granted prior passage
the Resolution. The injustice and oppression which would be
visited upon these petitioners by being refused to land, when
they this country relying in good faith upon the per
mission granted, is apparent to every
hold that the Congress of United
deliberately intended o infc this injury
Before proceeding with the discussion of this question
whether the Resolution has retrospective wish
refer again the anomalous position in which I placed.
By the Constitution of Hawaii provided that Retrospective
laws shall be enacted There such prohibition
the Constitution of the United States. This
Court of the United States, but considering that this
should be decided a of the United States would
my opinion decide it. follow the rule of adopted
in the United States a should have prospective
operation unless its show clearly legislative intention
that it should operate retropectivey The rule is stated
% American and English Encyclopedia of Law, p AS, as
follows:
1T may be laid down as fundamental rule in constituting
worded admit of a which would
render them retrospective well prospective that pros
pective operation only be given unless legislative
the declared necessarily implied from the
cumstances of the language used"
In Statutory Constructions Section 463 the
author says
'As retro:pecye laws generally unjust and in
they looked with
remedial will therefore be operate
when they ObnoXous
onal objection unless the intent that they shall do
plainly expressed appear Where the intention as
being retrospective doubtful the will construed
prospective only
clause Of tn oI,,, 1;