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

admit them only in such cases and upon
such conditions it may see fit to pre-
SCRIBE
The right of nation to expel or de-
port foreigners, who have not been nat
uraliZed or taken any steps toward be-
coming citizens of the country, rests up
on the same grounds, and is absolute
and unqualified as the right to prohibit
and prevent their entrance into the coun-
149 United States 707. See also Lem Moon
Sing VS.. United States, 15S United States
53S, in which these decisions are re-af-
firmed.
This Court also, in the case of Chow
Bick Git and another, 4 Haw. SS5, recog-
nized this principle
1t is also the right of every independent
state to prescribe the conditions upon
which it will admit aliens into its terri
tory, and further to revoke at will q per-
mission or license already granted to an
alien to enter, and this, too, without no
tice to such alien of its intention to thus
revoke the license. This is conceded by
all who took part in the argument in the
case a bar.
Being possessed. then. of these ample
powers and knowing, as we must pre-
sumo, what the laws of Hawaii We're on
the subject of Chinese immigration the
United States, through Congress, its duly
constituted mouthpiece on the sixth of
July last ordered that there shall be
further immigration of Chinese into the
Hawaiian Islands, except upon such con-
allowed by the laws of the United
States" The Republic of Hawaii has ac
cepted and acquesced in that and the
other provisions of the Newland's Reso-
luton What is the true meaning and
effect of that paragraph of the Resolu-
ton?
In the first place, I am of the opinion
that in the use of the term migra ton"
Congress did not intend to limit the appli-
cation of the prohibition to such persons
as can be called immigrants within the
popular acceptation of that term, and TO
exclude from its operation those aliens
| who, having formerly resided in the coun-
| try and having left with the intention of
returning, seek to re-enter after such
temporary absence; but rather that it
| was the intention to prohibit, to the ex-
| tent stated in the Resolution, the further
coming i'm of Chinese, whether they
had formerly resided in the country or
not. | construe the first clause of the
| paragraph in question as being the equiv
alent OF Hereafter no Chinese shall be
allowed to enter the Hawaiian Islands y
| In re Panzara ct al, 81 Fed. 30, and in
| re Martorelli, 63 Fed. 437, are cited in sup
port of the contention that the narrower
| SignihcaiCn should be given to the term
| immigration Those cases seem to me
| not to be in point. The Court in each OF
| them was constituting the statutes relat-
| ing TO the immigra ton of aliens other
| than Chinese. in which statutes the words
| immigrants" and 'alien immigrants
ed TO be excluded. Those precise terms
| are not used either in the Resolution o.
| in the United States laws relating tc
Chinese The statutes and the reason:
for their enactment We're not the same
as those now before the Court, Moreover
the decisions of the United States Su
preme Court show that under existing leg
1Slatlon in regard TO the exclusion o
| Chinese, applicants for admission are no
| exempt from the operation of such legts
| lation solely by reason of the fact tina
they have resided in the United States ans
| left with the intention of returning. Sc