The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-20

legal uidiSCAS-
In the afternoon the hearing of the
case was resumed and the court held
that he would 80 far assume jurisdic-
ton as to listen to testimony.
The two Chinese, Chuck Seen and
Chew Yoen, were both put on the stand
and testified that they We're merchants
in San Francisco and Carson City, and
had interests. One of the men claimed
that he had come here to collect $50. 900
owing to his firm. Witnesses were also
put on the stand to identify the sigma
lures on Chuck Seems merchants GER
tificate.
The court held after hearing all the
testimony that he had no jurisdiction
and the decision of the collector would
stand. He said that he had decided
five times before this that he had no
jurisdiction TO overrule the collector
even if sure that the collector was
wrong. Cases of this kind had been
decided before by the collector, as he
had better opportunity to judge of
the facts in each case. The court order
ed the deportation of the Chinese.
The two men will be sent back on the
Mariposa this afternoon. They com
plain they are not treated right on the
ship and have asked the collector to
get better food for them
ANOTHER POINT RAISED.
Judge Estee heard the case of Mai
Chat yesterday morning, Chinese
who had not registered because he was
too Ill to return within the prescribed
wear. He claims that the revenue Of
flee had not been opened for purposes
of registration before the beginning of
the present year and consequently he
was not able to register, before going,
though the law took effect last June.
Collector Chamberlain was on the
stand and testified that he had not is
sued the paper in question, and the rec
ords showed no demand for registration
had been made. Briefs will be filed
within few days.
ESTEE RENDERS ANOTHER DECI-
SION.
Judge Estee rendered a decision yes
terday in the Yung Ho case, ordering
the deportation of the defendant. In
passing upon the case the court said:
The defendant left the Hawaiian ISL
ands after annexation in October, 1899,
and went to China, returning sometime
in July 1901, nearly two years thereafter
and so he was not resident of the ter
ritory on the 18th of June 1900 His eX-
cuse 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 reason
| given for the delay to return within the
| year required by his return certificate
| not the reason contemplated by the Act
of November 3, 1898, for delay in regis
| tering as a Chinese laborer within the
| limits of the United States at the time
| the act went into effect and also the
proof that he was in the Hawaiian Isl
ands on June IA, 1900. Neither of these
prerequisites has in this case been com
piled with, and the Court cannot under
the law permit him to return.
The Courts have uniformly sustained
| the Chinese Exclusion Law. Chinese ex
clusion is simply the exercise of exclusive
national jurisdiction within the territory
of this nation. AS was said by Chief Jus
| tice Marshall as fer back as in the cast
of The Exchange reported in list Cranch
! 116, 136, The jurisdiction of the nator
within its own territory is necessarily
exclusive and absolute"
| 1t is conceded that Yong Ho, the de
|
| Hawaiian Islands when the Act of Con
gress of April so 1900, went into effect
| to wit: June H. 1900. That being so 1t
could not register even if he had return
ed in time according to the language o.
! the Statute. Ihe law does not permit
! him to come into the country to get q
certificate that he is a resident laborer
| There is no reservation in the Act OF
! April 30, 1900, permitting the return Of
| Chinese labOrerS who had voluntarily
! left the Hawaiian Islands with the in
| tent to return. Congress must be assumed
to have known that there might be many
such Chinese but having made no provi
sion for their return after June IA 1900
or the issuance of a residence certifica t,
to them, it is clear they should be ex
| cuded.
| Yong Ho comes squarely within this
| class, and being a Chinese laborer with
| in the limits of the United States anC
the District of Hawaii, without the reg
iStration certificate required, he pos
sesses no right to remain here. An,
| while it may be that a hardship is seem
inSly worked in this case, yet the per
mission to come here accorded to Chi
nese laborers is simply a privilege NOT
! right which Congress can withdraw b.
any subsequent legislation. The Court
have no power to modify or change thi
regulation. As was said in the case o
Ii Sing VS. United States, $50 L. S 40;
I'VE cannot yield by modifying or relax
ing by judicial construction the severit
of the statute under consideration
Let the defendant be remanded to tn
custody of the Marshal with instruction
to deprt him 10 the country from whic
he came