The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-08-07

Attorney n. w. BreckonS, VINO Is tine
focal United States District Attorney
has furnished a legal opinion on the
law which the Territory is enforcing
to exclude Japanese laborers from pub
lie works. He finds that the law is
unconstitutional, for reasons which are
very clearly set forth in his opinion
delivered to the editor of the Shinpo
The attorneys opinion is given in full
below with the exception of some ref
erences he made to cases decided in the
United States, illustrating the points
he makes:
In my opinion, the law in question
is invalid and the courts will not en-
force the same Ny reasons for this
opinion are as follows:
The fourteenth amendment to the
Constitution of the united States pro-
vides among other things as follows:
.'No state shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens OF the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property with
out due process of law, nor deny to any
person within it's jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws
This provision is also enforced by
alegislation enacted by Congress, being
| Sec. 1877, Revised Statutes of the
United States, whicl is as follows:
"All persons within the jurisdiction
Of the United, States shall have the
same right in every state and Terri
tory to make and enforce contracts, to
sue, be parties, give evidence, and to
the full and equal benefit of all laws
and proceedings for the security of
persons and property as is enjoyed by
white citizens, and shall be subject to
like punishment, pains, penalties. taxes,
licenses, and exactions of every kind,
and to no other
The latter part of the amendment
above quoted ''nor deny to any person
within it's jurisdiction the equal pro-
lection of the laws has in every in
stance in which it has been before the
courts. been held to cover the case OF
all persons, whether citizens or aliens,
residing within the Jurisdictions; hence
all aliens. residents within the Terri
tory. of Hawaii, are protected by the
clause.
The law of the Territory of Hawaii,
referred to, certainly discriminates be-
tween persons resident within the Ter
ritory. By it's terms all persons are
not equally entitled to acquire and
enjoy property. By it's terms, impedi-
ments are interposed to the pursuits OF
some which are not applied to the
fsame pursuits by the others.
The constitutional amendment has
been applied by the Federal and State
courts in variety of cases, many of
them, to my way of thinking, involv-
ing the same principle as is involved
in this question under consideration.
The Territorial Act is as palpably
aimed at japanese and Chinese labor,
as though it had said SO in as many
words. 1t is well known that very
large percentage of laborers in the
Territory are either japanese or Chi
nese. Under the laws or the United
States neither Chinese nor japanese
can become naturahzed; they are not
eligible to American citizenship. The
act. therefore, might just as well have
said that everybody but japanese and
Chinese might be employed on public
works, irrespectively of their citizen
ship. Should the law be held valid,
practically tie only persons who could
be prohibited by its provisions from be-
ing employed oa public works would
be Chinese and Japanese.
am not prepared to say what my
opinion would be as to the validity
of law preventing all aliens from
engaging in public work. The question
does not appear to have been fatty
decided bv any court, although in one
very recent case the Supreme Court
of the United States, while refusing
to pass on the question, intimated that
1t was most serious one. u
Aside from the constitutional ques-