Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1916-04-27
JUDGE STUART IN
STEVEN CASE HITS
AT 'SLAVELABOR'
Continued from page one)

agents. These agents oftentimes are
not prepared. and sometimes do not in
tend, to fulfill the promises which
they make TO those whom they per-
suade to- leave their present employ
ment and go elsewhere. The dictates
of self-preseryation as we'll as prop
er regard for the welfare of unwary
and easily led persons of the labOring
class would suffice to impel the legis,
lature to defensive action. Without
recapitulating the various require
ments of section OF Act As which
are imposed as prerequisites to the OBJ
tanning of license, we hold that they
are reasonable requirements and with
in the discretion of the legislature to
prescribe" -.
As is shown by the above quotation,
the courts take judicial knowledge OF
historical and political conditions. IN.
der this opinion and in his efforts to
supply cheap labor for the plantations,
the present governor and appointee Of
President Wilson has, according TO his
own reports, been Instrumental in
shipping into these islands in the last
few years no less than 1925 Fill
pinos, out of which comes the great
ma iority of criminals in the territory.
The Filipinos by their written con-
tracts are compelled to work upon the
plantations at price that the Ha-
waiian cannot live on. This is the
reason he is employed, and not that
there IS not sufficient Hawaiian labor
to till these lands. This peon or slave
L.. H. 81
tive inhabitants on the lands, and the
statutes sought to be enforced here
are for the sole purpose of holding
fast to this peon class. In other
words, the Hawaiian has lost his lands
and they have passed to the planta-
tions. and now he is refused the per-
mission of working for the owner Of
the lands at a reasonable compensa-.
ton. ~
Years ago, there was a statute I'M
der which contract laborers on planta-
tions we're held criminally for any vio-
lation Of their contracts, and com
PEELED to work out fines. In short, it
was nothing but slavery or continuous
involuntary servitude. That statute
became so obnoxious to the United
States that it was abandoned. By the
Organic Act, Section 10, it was pro-
vided: 49, IT,. !. =:..."
THAT no suit or proceeding shall be
maintained for the specific perform
ance of any contract heretofore or
hereafter entered into for personal Ia
Dor or services, nor shall any remedy
exist or be enforced for breach of any
such contract, except in a civil suit
or proceeding instituted solely to re-
cover damages for such breach.
1t will not be claimed that any Grim
inal proceeding would be allowable
against the Filipinos violating their
contracts, which were employed by
the defendant; but the theory is that
the territory may do indirectly what
1t cannot do directly, and punish the
man criminally who employs the Fill
Pine when it cannot punish the Fill
pino. cannot believe this. There
were constitutional provisions, sup
porting the majority opinion, in the
bred Scott case; a case that directly
furnished cause for the great Civil
War in the United States; but the
trend is entirely the other way ia the
Craig case. think the Craig case is
more destructive of the personal lib
erty of an Amer citizen than the
bred Scott case.
The argument used that the right
exists to go to foreign lands and EN-
zpioy there cheap labor, which in turn
drives the Hawaiian from the planta-
tions, is not satisfactory. The result
of such employment has been further
demonstrated in the virtual prohibit
ton of the coming in from the main
land of United States citizens to Ha-
wall. -. .E#..=
Much is said against the planters
on account of these laws that do not
think is justifiable. | am inclined to
think that upon direct vote of the
planters alone, they would disapprove
of these laws. 1t is the agents who
are working for the planters and wish
to make a great showing of what they
are doing, who are the real authors of
these laws. The planter must see that
the laws are fast bringing ruin to the
most beautiful spot on earth.
| have thought it necessary to say
this much in order that the courts de-
cision might not be mistaken in rend-
ering judgment against the defendant
in accordance with this agreement
can see no reason why three of these
cases should have a one dollar fine
and one of them should have hun
dred dollar fine, unless it is to carry
the impression that the court special
ly approves of that case, which | do
not.
The fine in each case will be one !
dollar; the costs in each case will be |
RENTED as per the agreement on file. |
A copy of this decision will be today |