The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-08-10

! The opinion given by United States
District Attorney Breckons against the
validity of the Citizen Labor law, was
read by the thinking men of Hawaii
with much interest and some alarm.
A call was at once made for Mr..
Breckons' authorities, these not having
been incorporated in the matter which
appeared first in the Hawaii Shinpo
and then in the Advertiser. The omit
ted parts of the opinion were procured
yesterday and are as follows:
The protection afforded by the pro-
vision has on more than one occasion
ton. In this Territory, of course, the
opinion of the Supreme Court of the
United States on this question is con-
elusive. 1 shall, therefore, refer as TO
the meaning of the provision only to
decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States.
In the case of Barber VS.. Connolly
113 U. S. q, decided in the year 1854
Mr.. Justice Field, in speaking of the
fourteenth amendment above referred
to, said that the amendment undoubt-
edly intended not only that there should
be no arbitr ry deprivation of life or
libeI ty, or arbitrary Spoliation of prop
erty, out that equal protection and Sc.
curity should be given to all under like
circumstances in the enjoyment of their
personal and civil rights; that all per-
sons should be equally entitled to pur-
sue their happiness, and acquire and
enjoy property, that no impedi-
ment should be interposed to the
pursuits of anyone except as applied to
the same pursuits by others under like
circumstances, and that no greater
burdens should be laid on one than are
laid on others in the same calling and
condition"
This definition met with the approval
of the same court in the year follow
ing. in re Yick Wo VS.. Hopkins, lis L.
s., $50. This latter was a case concern
ing the laundry business in the city
and county of San Francisco. The law
in question was admittedly enacted for
the purpose of preventing Chinese from
carrying on the laundry business. The
law was held void by the Supreme
Court
In the Parrot case, 1st Fed. 4S3, a
law of the State of California, making
it a criminal offense to employ Chinese
or Mongolians, was under considera-
ton In exhaustive opinions the two
Federal Judges, who heard the case,
held the act to be void, not only as
being in conflict with the 14th amend
ment, but also as being in conflict with
the treaty between the United States
and China.
In the Quong Woo case, decided by
Mr.. Justice Field in August. 1882 Q3th
Fed 229), city ordinance admittedly
aimed against Chinese residents was
likewise held void. both as being un-
lawful and unconstitutional and as con-
trary to the treaty.
In 1897 the State of Pennsylvania
enacted law imposing on every en-
ployer of foreign born, unnaturalized,
male persons over q years of age.
lax of 3 cents day for each day that
each of such persons might be employ
ed. and authorizing the deduction of
that sum from the wages of the en-
ployes. Mr.. Justice Acheson, in pass
ing upon the validity of the act, held
it to be contrary to the 14th amend
ment and that it did not afford equal
protection of the laws. (S2 Fed. 25S).
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
arrived at the same conclusion con-
cerning the act in the case of Juniata
Lime Stone Company VS.. Fagley. 1S1
Pa State. 1913.
In a number of cases to which it is