The Hawaiian gazette., 1900-11-09

China is large there is a constant in
ability to know exactly what to do in
many cases of applications to land on
the part of Chinese.
In Honolulu many of these cases are
in the courts. Decisions of lower
courts are constantly being appealed
and it puzzles Collector Stackable to
know how to act in each individual
case. Here is decision dated at
Washington. September II, which is in
deed a remarkable one:
Treasury Department,
Office of Commissioned General
of Immigration.
Washington, September II, 1900.
Collector of Customs,
Honolulu, II. r.
Sr:-The Bureau is in receipt of
your letter of oath ultimo inclosing a
communication from Messrs. III. Hack
field and Company, Ltd, requesting a
refund of Head tax on all Chinese pas
sengers who have been landed at your
port since June IA. 1900, upon the
ground that they were possessed of Ha
waiian birth certificates and are there
fore citizens of the United States.
The Solicitor of the Treasury has
gone over this matter and has express
ed the opinion that the application of
Messrs. H. Hackfeld and Company
should be denied, upon the ground that
Chinese persons acquiring citizenship
under the laws of Hawaii cannot be
considered citizens of the United States,
and are therefore not immune from the
collection of per capita tax.
Respectfully,
j. II. HARMED.
Acting Commissioner General.
According to this decision Chinese
who had been naturalized under the
laws of Hawaii are not citizens of the
United States. AS the Territorial Act
said plainly that all citizens of Hawaii
were citizens of the United States and
as about 100 Chinese have registered
and voted here in the last election, this
Treasury decision bumps up against a
higher authority, that of the Congress
and President of the United States.
The following decision at variance
with the preceding one is taken from
Treasury Decisions" published at
Washington, October %:
(2255D
Admission of Wife of a Chinese Native
born Citizen of the United States.
The wife of Chinese native born
citizen Of the United States is entitled
to admission regardless of the provi
sions Of Section 1894, Revised Statutes,
nor does such right to land depend on
the status of her husband as a mer
chant even if it is held that the eX-
clusion laws apply to a Chinese mer-
chant who is native born.
Treasury Department.
October 10, 1900.
Sir:-The Department is in receipt of
your letter of 10th instant transmitting
papers on appeal in behalf of Ii Ham
Shi, Chinese woman to whom admis-
sion was denied by you upon the
ground ID that she can not, under Sec
ton 1894 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States, take the status of her
husband, who Is u native born citizen
of this country, and 90 that she Is not
admissible as the wife of a merchant.
her husband not having been a mer-
chant at the time of her application
for admission.
The Solicitor of the Treasury has
rendered an opinion on this case, an
extract from which follows:
| do not think that Section 1894, Re
vised Statutes, applies to this case,
There is no question of citizenship, as
to the Wife, involved. She does not
apply to be landed because of any sup
posed right to be lawfully naturalized"
but because she is the wife of
a native-born citizen of the
United States. do not think
her right to land depends on the
status of her husband as merchant
even assuming that the exclusion laws
in this regard apply to a Chinese mer-
chant who is a citizen of this country
but rather on her higher right not to be
separated from her husband, who Is a
citizen of the United States and is
legally entitled to live in the country
of his birth,
In view of the foregoing, the appeal
is hereby sustained and you are direct
ed to release ana land the said III
Ham Shi.
Respectfully
H. A. TAYLOR,
Assistant Secretary.
Collector of Customs. san Francisco,
Cal,