The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-06-11

such a law is not in contfaVehlioh
with the most favored nation clause,
and that as legislation dealing with
the sale of liquor is a police regula-
ton. not covered by the treaty stipula-
lions. no nation can complain of such
a law if passed by the Territorial
Legislature. We don't believe that the
been construed thus. This clause, as
we understand it. comes into operation
when a special favor is conferred by
the local government upon another
nation, then all other nations who
have most favored nation privilege
will come in and receive the same
benefit But this clause is not effec-
tive when a nation is put in dis
advantageous position, because in such
case no other nation Will place in the
disadvantageous position. This pro-
posed liquor regulation would be
most unfavorable treatment instead
of being a most favored nation treat
ment We hold, therefore, the most
favored nation clause has nothing to
do with the exclusion of all foreigners
or a particular alien people from the
exercise of trade of liquor selling. But
it does not follow that when all ma
tions are placed in equally disadvan-
tageous position, then no party ag-
grieved has any cause of complaint
If the right of selling liquor is denied
to all foreigners, it does not follow
that one of them, Japanese, for in
stance, has no right to complain, pro-
vfded that it violates the rights Sc
cured to them by the Japanese Amer
lean Treaty.
Now, the proposed legislation clear
ly violates the rights of japanese in
Hawaii in that it restricts their right
of following legitimate trade, both
wholesale or retail in all kinds Of pro-
vides that they may trade in any part
of the territories of the other by
wholesale and retail. The treaty pro-
duce, manufactures and merchandise
of lawful commerce. While allowing
the sale of liquor by the native or
naturalized American to disallow il to
the japanese residents is in violation
of treaty is self-evident on glance
at this passage Therefore, whether
other nations are equally maltreated
or not, the Japanese Government has
good reason to complain if such a law
be passed. and this without regard to
H.
plant or not. This independent action
on the part of Japan would be impera-
tive in view of the preponderating
number of her people residing in this
Territory and consequently large in
terest involved.
But the advocates of the restrictive
legislation say that the proposed law
is a police regulation, which is ex-
pressly placed beyond the control of
the treaty. Is it a police regulation?
This is the crux of the discussion.
What are the characteristics of
police regulation? They are IL equal
ity and universally of application: %
reasonableness of regulation; and go
it must have for its Object the promo
ton of public welfare, elevation and
encoura cement of public morality, pro-
and better enjoyment of public com
fort and public convenience. An emil
nent author quotes a judge thus. By
the general police power of the State,
persons and property are subject to
all kinds of restraints and burdens,
in order to secure the general comfort,
health and prosperity of the State.
And Chief Justice Marshall has the
following to say on the limitation of
this underlined and comprehensive
power inherent in every state: If,
therefore, statute purporting to have
been enacted to protect the public
health, the public morals or the public
safety has no real or substantial re-
lations to those objects, or is a palp-
able invasion Of rights secured by the
fundamental law, it is the duty of the
court to so adjudge. and thereby give
effect to the Constitution" Thus in
San Francisco the employment of fe-
males in saloon is forbidden, and in
Stockton higher license is charged for
saloon employing waitress than other
saloons. the former being $50 while
the latter is only $50. These regula-
lions are reasonable regulations for the
preservation of social order and social
decency. On this ground apparent dis
DttNttIi GLASSES are w
held. But if the employment of female
of certain nationality or certain color
of skin or of hair be forbidden or
higher license fee for such employment
be charged then it is certain that such
a law would be declared void because
such regulation is unreasonable. in not
having any connection with the preser-
walton of order or morality. Let US
quote the learned author again. He
says: But it must not be understood
that the legislative discretion in
granting or Withholding license to
do any kind of business. is unlimited
and is uncontrolled by any fundamen-
tai principles of justice and imparti-
atty towards individuals, the consti-
tutional principles of equality and uni
formity as TO all parties. who come
within the operation of the law. must
be strictly observed. 4 discriminate ton
against part of such a class, by the
confinement of the regulation or Ii
90 "a tn n UT Il fl,.