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

o1SL Il
| lied the Government TO issue permits to
| Chinese to enter these Islands in three
| classes OF cases: first, to those who, re-
siding here wished to leave the country
| temporarily and return within a year:
| second, to merchants and travellers, who
had never been in the country before, but
wished to sojourn here temporarily, the
| limit OF such so1ourn being fixed at six
| months; and third to laborers, who, also,
| who Were permitted to remain In the
country for an indefinite period upon con-
altion lbi1a only only that they coming themselves
| tons. bond was required in the sec
ond class, conditioned that the principal
would leave the country at or before the
expiration of the six months. and in the
third class conditioned for the faithful
| performance of the undertaking as to oc-
| cupation. See Penal Laws of 1897, p. 5o4
ct seq. Had the Hawaiian Government
issued, shortly before July q. 1895 (and
or noO permits for large number of
Chinese of the third class. 1t could not be-
it was not the intention of Congress to
revoke all such permits and to prevent
their holders from entering these Islands.
Other matters were, by the terms of the
resolution, expressly continued as then
| existing, until Congress should otherwise
provide; but it is apparent that, in view
| of the policy of the United States with
reference to Chinese. Congress wished to
put put an an end at once to the entry of Chin-
1
tons other than those prescribed by
| United States laws. And If it was the
| Of the third class above mentioned how
| can 1T be held that il was not it's inten-
ton to SO exclude those of either the
first or second class or of both those
| classes? 1t is the fact that they hold
permits. if anything at all. which would
give them the right to enter. and yet all
| .hree classes alike hold such permits. 1t
| is not the fact of justice or Injustice
| which would give them the right to land.
| Va In
| Tor the law-making power, and not for
the Court, to weigh. Uncertainty in the
| to determine each applicants right to land
| upon the existence or non-existence of in
justice or hardship.
There is no doubt that the rule in the
United States is that lin constituting stat
utes SO worded as to admit of a construc-
ton which would render them RETROSPECT
tive as we'll as prospective, a prospective
operation only is to be given. unless q
legislative intent to the contrary is de-
clared, or necessarily implied from the
circumstances of the language used."--
% Am. and Eng. Encycl. Law. p. AS. In
this case, the legislative intent is to bs,
gathered from the language used in the
Resolution itself, and Congress having
said that there should be NO further inn
migration of Chinese into these Islands
except as therein stated, it must be pre-
sumed that that body meant what it
said without any further qualifications If
any injustice hardship results from
their act, the responsibility therefor is
upon the Lawmakers and not upon this
Court.
1t is true, I think that the DEPORTA-
L. ION or those Chinese, II any. Unlawful
ly in the Hawaiian Islands cannot for the
present be enforced. because the statutes
require that certain proceedings be had
before a United States Judge in order to
establish the unlawfulness of their pres
ence, and no such tribunal as yet exists
here But it does not follow that because
this is so Congress did not intend that
| the provisions of United States laws re-
| lating to the EXCLUSION of those not
yet in the country should take immediate
effect. 1t may well have been the fact,
| and L think that it was, that Congress-
| while willing to allow those in the coun-
try unlawfully to remain until further
order, was anxious to put an end at once
to any further infuex.
Under the terms of the Resolution.
when a Chinese person seeks to enter the
Hawaiian Islands, the question of wheth-
determined in accordance with the United
States laws, in other words the United
states laws relating to the immigration
and exclusion of Chinese are now the rule
of action here, are in force here, and ap-
ply in my opinion to ALL Chinese who
seek to enter.
1t is urged that no machinery has been
provided by Congress for the enforcement
of the United States Chinese exclusion
laws in these Islands and that conse-
quently it could not have been the in
tention of Congress to make said laws
applicable in the cases of those Chinese
who hold return permit. issued prior to
July z. 1888. Assuming that it is true that
there is no machinery as claimed, the OBJ
lection, II it is good SO far to lead
the Court to hold that it was not the in
tention to give the Resolution a retro
spectve operation, must also of necessity
compel the Court to hold that not even
prospective operation be given to it
until Congress shall by further legislation
provide the means for enforcing the laws.
The only logical conclusion of the argu-
ment is, it seems to me. that until such
time United States laws do not apply here
and that Hawaiian laws continue in
force Yet, that the Hawaiian statutes
so lar as they are inconsistent with
United States laws the subject are
repealed by the Resolution and that the
United States laws are, prospectiveIy, at
least, extended is clear. Moreover, the
necessary conclusion just stated would
render the clause in the Resolution inop-
erative and meaningless. If Congress had
simls sy intended to leave matters they
stood with reference to Chinese immigra-
ton until it should further Iegislate, the
clause would have been omitted; the gen.
eral provision continuing existing laws I'm
force would have been amply sufficient
The language of the various United
States statutes on the subjects of Chinese
| immigration and immigration of other
| aliens, are not clear in their language
as they might be in defining the relative
| powers and duties, in the premises of
| Collectors of Customs and of Chinese In
SpectorS appointed by the Secretary of
| the Treasury. Both are given certain
| powers to exercise and certain duties to
perform, and between them fully
/ force all Chinese exclusion laws, but just
where the dividing line between them is,
| just what Inspector Go without
| the assistance of a Collector, it is
| difficult TO define Another question not
| free from difficulty is whether the Col
| lector of Customs of the Hawaiian Islands
| is authorized to perform the various
! duties assigned to Collectors by the
| United States Chinese Exclusion Laws,
| on Txx-n \