The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-08-19
ANOTHER CONTENTION is DIS.
POSED OF.
Two New Points Raised-Authority for
Refusing to Admit Chinese from the
Mainland.

Judge Estee decided the Yung Ho
case Lnis morning, and had two new
points involving rights of Chinese to
land submitted. One was in the case
of Mai Chai, whose excuse for not re-
gistering is that the registration of
Chinese was not begun here until the
beginning of this year, and the other is
in the habeas corpus case of the Chi
nese from San Francisco, who claims
the right to come here from the main
land.
In the Yung Ho case, after review
ing the various laws covering leaves Of
absence and registration, the court
said:
"The defendant left the Hawaiian
Islands after annexation in October
1899 and went to China, returning some
time in July. 1901, nearly two years
thereafter and so he was not a resident
of the territory on the 14th of June 1900.
His excuse for not returning within the
year provided for in his certificate of
return was that he had rheumatism and
could not for that reason return sooner.
But the sickness shown was a rea-
son given for the delay to return with
in the year required by his return certi-
ficate, not the reason contemplated by
the Act of November g. 1898 for a delay
in registering as a Chinese laborer with
in the limits of the United States at
also the proof that he was in the Ha-
waiian Islands on June IA, 1900. Neither
of these prerequisites has in this case
been complied with, and the Court can
not under the law permit him to return.
THE Courts have uniformly sustained
the Chinese Exclusion Law. Chinese
exclusion is simply the exercise of eX-
elusive national jurisdiction within the
territory of this nation. AS was said
by Chief Justice Marshal, as far back
as in the case of The Exchange reported
in 1st Cranch, 1876, The jurisdiction
of the nation within it's own territory is
necessarily exclusive and absolute
In the case of Chae Chang Ping VS..
United States reported in 100 u. S. 5S1,
the Supreme Court of the United States
held that that certificate issued to a
Chinese laborer under the Act of May
5, 1882 conferred upon him no right
to return to the United States of which
he could not be deprived by a subse-
quent Act of Congress- The Act of
June IA 1900 is a subsequent Act.
ITO the same point also is the more
recent case of Fong Yue Sing VS.. United
States, found in 149 U. S. Page sos,
where the court says: That congress
could during the absence of a Chinese
laborer who had formerly been in the
United States, and had departed there
from with a return certificate, pass a
law restraining said Chinese labored
from returning"
And that is practically what has been
done in this case.
1T is conceded that Yong Ho, the
defendant is not one of the Chinese in
the Hawaiian Islands when the Act of
Congress of April 30 1900 went into ef-
feet to wit: June IA, 1900. That being
so he could not register even if he had
returned in time according to the Ian
I ON Nr he
permit him to come into the country to
get certificate that he is a resident
laborer. There is no reservation in the
Act of April 80, 1900, permitting the re-
turn of Chinese laborers who had
voluntarily left the Hawaiian Islands
with the intent to return. Congress
must be assume to have known that
there might be many such Chinese but
having made no PROVISION for their re-
turn after June IA, 1900, or the issuance
! of a residence certificate to them, it is
! clear they should be excluded.
| Yong Ho comes squarely within this
| class, and being a Chinese laborer with.
in the limits of the United States ant
| the District of Hawaii, without the re-
| gistration certificate required, he pos.
! sesses no right to remain here. AND
while it may be that a hardship is
seemingly wor'Se, in this case, yet the
! permission to come here accorded tC
Chinese laborers is simply a privilege
not a right which Congress can w.
draw by any supbsequent legislation
The Courts have no power to modify o
change this regulation. AS was sale
in the case of Ii Sing VS. United States
$50 u. S. 495, we cannot yield by modi
flying or relaxing by judicial construc
tion thte severity of the statute unde
consideration.
Let the defendant be remanded t
the custody of the Marshal with in
struction to deport him to the countr!
from where he came