Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 402, 3 March 1892 — In the Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands Chong Chum vs The Kohala Sugar Company. [ARTICLE]

In the Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands

Chong Chum vs The Kohala Sugar Company.

I n Banco. BY THE OOUBT. lteeeme>ouß tbai the vice of tbe wbek lwioi#ctiori now before qs Jiee in tbe fect that the "ipeeial reeidenw permit'' wae not tendered to tbe p , antiff in Chinti before he gtarted on hi§ voyage to this Kingdoiu. He had noopportamty of informing hiniteif of the oonditionB upon whieh he would be allowed to proceed te Hawaii und of ronsenting tothem or ofrH' .Bing to proceed uiider ihem. The pasgport whieh contained tht* conditions upon whiel) he waa to be peruiitted to enter kingdoiu wa» obtained for i»laintiff in Honolula and hie name ineerted thereinoii hie arrival at Mahukona, Hawaii, at the iime of it» pre»entation to the cuatom§ offioer for hie eotry iuto thie Ki ngdoit. Thk wae aliowed by ihe A< jfc of 1880 Chapter 67, "6ection 3, But in our ef>!nion it hae defeated itself. Whiie adhering to tbe opmion expreeaed bv the J UBtices of the Bupr«Bie Court to the latyre on tbe sth November. 189i). that tbis kinfdoui ha.v the right to impoee such oonditionß anel re»tr)c lione upon the entry of aiien» |with whoee nation« this kingdoin has no treatv to thecontrarr) into the territory of this kingdoin n* the LegiBl»ture dee7iis <'88fiitial to tbe wdf»ire. peiie*- an«l ifoty of this *tate. it is vitn! t<-* tli<' bin«lit>ji ♦ not v t oi* Ūw*- co!ulitiun« uiKm the alien i:umigrant th;a lie should have noiiee of theiīi bcfbre he Btarts on his vojage to thie kingdom. We are §tili of theopiuion thac it wouUl V»e no infraction of theconsti tution to impofe conditioßS as to length of reBidenee aitd character of tbe emDloyiueait in whieh the immigrant ean engage, to whieh he niUBt aasent before being permitted to enter this kingdoni It eeeme to be admrtted that the character of tbe employment was known and eoneented to by the plaintiff in th»« case, and that he was to labor Q««eier contract for three year§. Hut the eonditione in the 4th tubdivision of Ihe lisrt eeeiion of the Act of IH9O aa to nptention of onefourth of the wagei of tbe imiui-l grant to be Jepoeited in the trea«ury ! ŪŌIS ii haaehw flve dollars as a fund from whieh to i defrar the iocln%rAi)t , i ■ back to China. ele.. i« in o>ir o}»i ( nion UfiConstitnti<»nal af interf<*r- j ing with the liberty of t-he mthoii and h»8 right enj«iyiriu atnl im? Bes«uhg pr»*pertv. and it nol w.t!:in the poliee c»f thn Hat«\ 1 may B«id ti»ut i* ih iu* i.'-n:-» !.i-" whieh ihe ?!:»!«• *••:• .r- - tii» o r-; ture /ronvth • .\j.».«rd«Mu <»f mlgrant lli i t* rni f hi> o rfuittcd|>iiaeuc« h:ii expired. j

Rut if ihe continuanoe of ihe in» divitlual in this Kingdom after the 18|H*<"iiied term is coniidereii by tbe j Legiplature to. -be obnoxiouB -and >»langfrouB to th€ Btate. it # must pro- \ 'ule tho mean c of hi» deportation. j It would t»e an unwarrantible in- | terference with the right of the individual to make him pay an arbitrarv Btim from hii own wage« to getbim out of the country into whieh he has been invited, be h*Viug done nothing criminal mein* while. But we based our aaeent to the decree in ihii eaee on the poeitlon that tbe p)amtiff has eome to tbii> oountry without the provinoi» m to deduction of wages Ma<Kmditikm of nis entry within havin£ been made to him, and ******* 0?y are not binding upmr hlki he li tberefore freefrom thk nfcl!gatioiij of the contract made mder it | Thii condition ii eeparable from the other parti of the Act and lt| doee not heeome necemary now to pasB upon the conatitutionality of the whole Act. i It is noiieeahle that the matter | of retention of wagei of the imm i-1 grani a«\pretscribed by the fourth I «üb<iiviBion of the Act of 181K). wa& 1 not made tbe «übject ofinquiry by I the Legislature to thi« Court. 1 ! I)ecree aflirrned and demurrer ioverruled. ī A. 8. Hartwell for plaintiff. j W. H. Castle and F. M. Hatch | for defendarit. Honolulu. Feb. 26, 1892. I agree with the co»clu8ion8 of the Court, under the reaeomng of tbe decieion appealed frast. BANi>rfmD B. Dolk. Honolulu, Feb. 3s, 1892.