The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-02-15

Editor Advertiser: / was much pleas
ed with your editorial statement in re-
gard to Editor Lo San. Your sugges-
ton that good Americans, who object
to this shameful law and its outrageous
application, should furnish funds to
push the case and prevent his depor-
tation is a good one. l agree with you.
4 Chinese gentleman has been subjected
to disgraceful Imprisonment, for the
crime of being an editor. He has had
to secure heavy bail to gain his liberty.
He is told that he viii be sent out OF
the country. He should not be forced
to bear the expense OF stand against
this unrighteous law. As an American
citizen / am ashamed that my country,
the land of liberty, should have such
law on her statute books. IT is law
that does much injustice to the people
of a. great and friendly nation.
/ feel that the Chinese should not
have to pay the cost of fight against
a law so unfair I should like to offer
a little aid TO the cause of fair play,
for Editor Lo Sun, and herewith enclose
$40. l trust others viii help him. If it
Is necessary for the case TO go TO the
Supreme Court of the United States
20 secure Justice / believe il should 90.
The decision would be, without doubt,
more reasonable Interpretation of the
law in this case, and would, / believe,
permit Mr. Eo to stay in the country
as a teacher although being an
editor.
OPINION OF UNITED STATES
COURT.
In an opinion of the Circuit Court of /,
the L. 5. for the District of y. Y, in !
the case of the Church of The Holy
Trinity V. United States, submitted Jan. /
Z, 1892, and decided in favor of the
plaintiff, the true original intent of the /,
exclusion law was very plainly brought /
out. The opinion stated "that it was
cheap unskilled labor, which was max
ing the trouble, the influx OF which .
Congress sought TO prevent. 1t was
never suggested that we had in this
surplus Of brain. toilers.'
The following extract is from the
report of the Senate Committee on
and Labor, which recon-
nended the passage of the Exclusion
Bill That committee would have sug-
gested the substituting of manual
abor" and manual service for the
words 'Elabor' and serviee,'' used
N the bill. The committee, however,
believing that the bill in its present
'orm would pe construed as including
,nIy those whose labor or service Is
manual in character, let the proposed
,hange mass 1t is plainly seen here,
hat the original idea of the bill was
certainly not to exclude a man of edu-
alton and letters, such as an editor Of
/ paper.
The courts have also decided that
loctor is not a 'laborer, a preacher
: not 'tlaborer, and certainly wise
Judge would say that an editor is not
laborer.
Of course in the hair splitting inter,
rotation which is so often given to
he laws against the Chinese. an editor
writes his articles with his hands and
o might be called manual laborer.
SUIT so also the preacher from the pull
it, as he labors with his flock, in case
e uses any emphatic gestures with his
lands, might pe called "manual Ia ,
orer.
The grievance is not against the i'm
migration authorities here who have to {
nforee an unjust Iaw. with all its I'M
easonable interpretations. but against
he law, which should be changed.
ope the case viii be pushed as far as
even TO the Supreme Court,
0 show that an intelligent, educated {
Gentleman may come 70 this country J
Though he may be Chinese, and an
ditor.
: