Newspaper Page Text
Established July 2, 1S5G.
VOL. XXIX., NO. 5122. HONOLULU, HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, SATURDAY, JANUARY, 7, 1S9 9. TEN PAGES. PRICE FIVE CENTS. PROFESSIONAL CARDS. J. Q. WOOD. ATTORNEY AT LAW AND NOTARY Public. Office: Corner King and Bethel Streets. DR. C. B. HIGH. DENTIST. PHILADELPHIA DENT- al College 1892. Masonic Temple Telephone 318. m. A. C. WALL DR. 0. E. WALL DENTISTS OFFICE HOURS: 8 A. M. to 4 p. m. Love Building, Fort Street. M. E. GROSSMAN, D.D.S. DENTISTS 98 HOTEL, STREET, Ho nolulu. Office Hours: 9 a. m. to 4 p. m. DR. A. J. DERBY. DENTIST CORNER FORT AND Hotel Streets, Mott-Smith Block. Telephones: Office, 615; Residence, 789. Hours: 9 to 4. GEO. H. HUDDY, D.D.S. DENTIST FORT STREET, OPPO site Catholic Mission. Hours: From 9 a. m. to 4 p. m. DR. F. E. CLARK. DENTIST PROGRESS BLOCK, COR ner Beretania and Fort Streets. DR. A. II. SINCLAIR. 413 KING ST., NEXT TO THE OPERA House. Office hours: 9 to 10 a. m.; 1 to 3 p. m.; 7 to 8 p. m. Sundays: 12 m. to 2 p. m. Telephone 741. C. L. GARVIN, M.D. OFFICE No. 537 KING STREET, near Punchbowl. Hours: "S:00 to 9:00; 2:00 to 5:00; 6:00 to 7:00. Telephone No. 448. DR. WALTER HOFFMANN. CORNER BERETANIA AND PUNCH bowl Streets. Office Hours: 8 to 10 a. m.; 1 to 3 p. m.; 7 to 8 p. m. Sundays: 8 to 10 a. m. Telephone 510. P. O. Box 501. T. B. CLAPHAM. VETERINARY SURGEON AND DEN tist. Office: Hotel Stables. Calls, day or night, promptly answered. Specialties: Obstetrics and Lame ness. Lorrin A. Thurston. Alfred W. Carter. THURST0H& CARTER. ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW. MERCHANT Street next to Post Office. W. C. Achl. Enoch Johnson. AGHI & JOHHSOH. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW. Office No. 10 West King Street. Telephone 8S4. T. McGANTS STEWART. (Formerly of the New York Bar.) ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT Law, Spreckels Building, Room 5, 305 Fort Street, Honolulu. CATHCART & PARKE. ATTORNEYS AT LAW. 13 KAAHU manu Street. CHAS. F. PETERSON. ATTORNEY AT LAW AND NOTARY Public. 15 Kaahumanu Street. LYLE A. DICKEY. A.TTORNEY AT LAW AND NOTARY Public. King and Bethel Streets. Telephone S06. P. O. Box 7S6. J. M. KANEAKUA. ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT T.oTir nffiro: In the Occidental Hotel, corner of King and Alakea Streets, Honolulu. CHARLES CLARK. ATTORNEY AT LAW 121 MER chant Street. Honolulu Hale. Tel ephone 345. Up Stairs. 0. G. TRAPHAGEN. ARCHITECT 223 MERCHANT ST., Between Fort and Alakea. Tele phone 734. Honolulu, H. I. All : TRUST : finfl INVESTMENT : I Will buy for you -ANY Stock or Bond In this market or abroad. GEORGE R. CARTER, Treasurer. Office In rear of Bank of Hawaii. Ltd. GUIDE THROUGH HAWAII. PRICE, 60c. BEAUTIFULLY ILLUSTRATED. FOR SALE BY ALL NEWSDEALERS WOMEN'S EXCHANGE. 215 Merchant St. Makes a specialty of ancient Hawai ian Curios, and also carries the best assortment of modern Hawaiian work to be found in Honolulu, including Mats, Fans, Leis, Bamboo, Lauhala and Cocoanut Hats, Etc., Etc. Tel. 659. ANNOUNCEMENT. MISS E. CLARK, OF B. F. EHLERS & Co., has left for the coast to be ab sent about six weeks. Those desiring the latest in fashionable dressmaking will do well to await her return. 5114 DRESSMAKERS. MISS FREIBURG KNOKE, DRESS- making parlors, corner School and Nuuanu streets. C. S. RICHARDSON. PUBLIC STENOGRAPHER AND Typewriter. Expert work at low est prices. Telephone 313, with H. Waterhouse & Co., Queen street. MORRIS K. KE0H0KAL0LE, LOUIS K. M'GREW. UNITED STATES CUSTOM HOUSE Brokers, Accountants, Seachers of Titles and General Business Agents. Office: No. 15 Kaahu manu street, Honolulu. Formerly A Rosa's Office. Telephone 520. P. SILVA. AGENT TO TAKE ACKNOWLEDG ments to Instruments, District of Kona, Oahu. At W. C. Achi's office. King street, near Nuuanu. A. J. CAMPBELL. STOCK AND BOND BROKER. OF- flce Queen street, opposite Union Feed Co. M. VV. M'CHESNEY & SONS. Wholesale Grocers and Dealers In Leather and Shoe Findings. Agents Honolulu Soap Works Com pany, Honolulu, and Tannery. LEWIS & CO. Wholesale m Reiaii Mm 111 FORT STREET. Telephone. 240 : : P. O. Box, 89. H. MAY & CO. mottle flit RehD Grocers -:- 9S FORT STREET. -:- Telephone, 22 : : : P. O. Box, 470. What Say You To an arrangement by which one oiling "will keep vour Bicycle well oiled for a whole season. We've got it. No Jeaknge, no bother, no trouble ! You get this when you buy LAND. . a CLEVE B 209 HOTEL STREET. Telephone 909. CLEVELAND wm NO CHINESE GAN ENTER Important Decision By the Soprcme Court. SAYS HAS NOT JURISDICTION Chief Justice Dissents Opinion Sustains the One Federal Off icer Here. Resolution. Effect. IX THK SUPREME COURT OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. December Term, is3. In the matter of the petition of Wong Tuck, Ah Muk, See Yan, Ah King, Hee Pee and wife, Ah See, Kai Lin, Chun Yee (a woman), and her daughter, Lok Sam, Ah In and wife, Ah Tai, alias Ah Fai, Chew Sing, Ah See (a woman), E. Pong, Chan Yit Mung, Ah Kong, and Lum Tuck Chong, for a writ of habeas cor pus. In the matter of the petition of Luke Kru, Ma Nin, Ma Sing, and Choy To for a writ of habeas corpus. In the matter of the petition of Leong Chee, Cheong Yook, Yen Lin, Yen Chong, Yen Yick, Yen Moon, Yen Bow, and Lu See, for a writ of habeas corpus. ORIGINAL. Submitted December 3, 1S0S. Decided Jan uary C. IStft. Judd, C. J., Whiting, J., and Circuit Judge Perry, in place or i rear, j., aoseni. Every sovereign nation has the inherent right to deny to aliens the privilege of entering its territory and even to expel them therefrom. . it i 5iis:-i the. risrht of " every independ ent state to prescribe the conditions upon which it will aamit anens mio us ut-in-torv and further to revoke at will a per mission or license already granted to an alien to enter, and this, too, without notice to such alien of its intention to thus revoke the license. The Joint Resolution passed by the Congress of the United States on July , 1S98, relating to the Annexation of the Ha waiian Islands, proviueu, mier an. nun ...v,- choii i.f. net further immigration of Chinese into the Hawaiian Islands, ex cept upon such conditions as are now ui may hereafter be allowed by the laws of .htTnitori statps " TTeld. that bv virtue of this provision the United States laws relating to the immigration and exclusion of Chinese were extended to and put in force in the Hawaiian Islands, and are ... ; in this fAiin t rv : and. furth- er, that Chinese, whether residing in this country or not prior to July 7, 1S98, to whom permits to emei Islands were issued prior to said date by i, iinn'otinn nnvommpnt. are not eX- cepted by the Resolution, from the oper ation of said United States laws, but are also subject to the provisions thereof. Ti,iu t- ta tint a court of the United States and has no jurisdiction, in habeas corpus proceedings or otherwise to pass upon the validity oi me appuimuicii l Federal omcer or tne extern ui ma l bwq nr thft leealitv Of v, i 4-. hv him unrlr snon laws OI 1X1(7 UCiru lIUil - persons who claim to be illegally in such custody. THE OPINION. ponnrH thuc shnws that some of the petitioners resided in these Islands prior to July 7, 1S9S, and left with the intention f rotiipninf anri nrssssinr nermits to re enter, issued prior to said date and that the other of the petitioners nave noi neic tofore resided in this country, but also possess permits to enter, issued prior to said date. The main issue raised by the pleadings c whether or" tint thf Laws of the United States relating to the immigration and Dvvluclnri nf ffilneso were pxtpnded to the Hawaiian Islands by the terms of the i T!nt T?tcAlntlnn nacceri Vv PontrrPSi? Oil Julv 6, lb'JS, and signed by the President on v 11.1 the day following, ana commonly cauen the "Newla'nds Resolution." T'fi-ie eneT-inr- nrkrn the rnn:i)lorntiO!l of the question of what it is that Congress has enacted by truat section oi tne rew- i.-.v..-1'c T-? ii ir n-hiph rpfora tn Chin ese immigration, it is well to observe the extent ot tne powers possessea iy u- gress in tne matter or me exclusion u.uu. expulsion of foreigners. It is a fundamental principle that every sovereign nation has the inherent right to deny tne aliens ine privilege oi eiuennj; its "territory and even to expel them therefrom. This principle has been recog nized and affirmed in clear and unmis tnkeahle laneruasre bv the SuDreme Court of the United States. Chae Chan Ping vs. United States. 1J0 United States ti, t7, the Court said: "The power of the Government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, tne public interests require sucn exciu- ;ii-r h :i hfn n s;5en t -! in renpflted ill- Stances, and never denied by the execu tive legislative departments," and quoted witn approval tnat tne language United States executive officials, who wrote. "Even society possesses the un doubted right to determine who shall compose its members, and it is exercised by all nations, both in peace ana in wai. It mnv ahvavs be Questionable whether a resort to this power is war ranted by the circumstances, or wnat ae i-irtment rf the f!nvrn men t 1a emrOW ered to exert it; but there can be no doubt that it is possessed by all nations, and tnat eaen may aeeiae ior itseu wnen me occasion arises demanding its exercise. "The control of people within its limits, nnd thr riirht to pviipI from its territory persons who are dangerous to the peace of the State, are too clearly within the essential attributes of sovereignty to be seriously contested." Asrain, in the case of Nishimura Ekin. 142 United States 65?, this language is used: "It is an accepted maxim of international law, that every cAvorr.!om nitinn hoc the nnYTpr. HQ 1 11- herent in sovereignty, and essential to eel f.nTee:eT-v-j t5rn t n f rT-h1il the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to A FAR-REACHING DECISION KJHlUE decision of the Supreme Court u II II one wnich is far reaching in its U II 11 whether or not a Chinaman with . ment is entitled to land here, sinks into insignilicance before the declaration of the Court that it is without jurisdiction in cases aris- - ing under the laws of the United States. This proposition, if followed -f- to a logical conclusion, may rult in some very serious failures of - justice. The decision of the majority of the Court is briefly this: That the ques- tion raised as to the authority of J. F. lirown to act as a United States officer in Hawaii, is a question arising under the laws of the United -f- States; that the Constitution of the United States reserves Jurisdiction of all such cases to Federal Courts, that is to the Supreme Court of the United States, and such inferior Courts as Congress may establish; that Hawaiian 4 Courts are not inferior Courts established by Congress, and therefore they have no jurisdiction to consider questions arising under the laws of the -- United States. If this lack of jurisdiction could be confined to the laws of the United -- States, no serious inconvenience would follow, as the law respecting Chinese immigration is probably the only United States law In force in this country, but cases in law arising under the laws of the United States form but one class out of a dozen that are reserved to the Federal Courts in precisely the same terms. The language of the Constitution is: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties made or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting Ambas- sadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, to all cases of admiralty and . maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States, between a S"tate and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States; between cit- izens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State and the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or sub- jects." Now if our Courts fi"ave no jurisdiction of cases arising under fhe laws of the United States, how can they have jurisdiction of cases arising under the Constitution of the United States, or how can they have admir- alty and maritime jurisdiction? How can a citizen of California sue a cit- izen of Hawaii if such suits are expressly reserved to such inferior Courts as Congress may establish, and Congress has neglected to act? In admiralty alone the situation is serious. Both the City of Columbia -f-and the Labrador are under condemnation by Hawaiian Courts sitting in admiralty. If such Courts are without jurisdiction both the previous de- tention and the sale will be void, and the writ of the Court will be no de- fense to the Marshal in a suit for damages brought against him. -f The proposition which will excite the most attention, however, is the -f-impossibility of escaping the conclusion that if our Courts have no jurlsdic- tion over cases arising under the laws of the United States thev are equally without jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution of the -f-United States. The only law now in force in Hawaii, by the express terms of the Newlands Resolution, is such municipal legislation as is not con- trary to the Constitution of the United States, its treaties, or to the Res- olution itself. Who is to determine what laws are in force? If the contention is 4-4- raisea tnat a certain law is contrary to the Constitution of the United States, that is a Federal question and in a State Court would be the signal for a prompt dismissal of the case or its transfer to a United States Dis trict Court. The decision just rendered 1Vjts us on the same footing as a State Court and in effect leaves this country without any tribunal compe- tent to say which Hawaiian laws are contrary to the Constitution, or which are still in force. The decision in question came as a surprise to the bar, as from previous decisions it was anticipated that the Court was leaning towards the other view. In the case of Republic vs. Edwards, the Court discussed fully whether two Hawaiian statutes, that allowing a true bill to be found by a Circuit Judge and that making a verdict of nine jurors valid, were in con- -4- flint with the Constitution of the Ignited States. In other words, the Court -4 passed on a Federal question. In the case of Colegrove vs. S. S. City of Columbia, also, upon a motion to fix a bond for the release of the vessel 4- the Supreme Court assumed that it had admiralty jurisdiction. In neither of these cases, however, was the question raised and contested, so neither was a binding adjudication on the present case. Judge Perry himself how- ever, who wrote the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, had previouslv 4- while sitting as Circuit Judge, decided after full argument of counsel that his Court had admiralty jurisdiction. ' Of course the Court is bound to administer the law as it Finds it ir- respective of public convenience or failure of justice in individual cases, but in previous cases of interregnum, "the law of public necessity" has -4-played a great part. As was said by Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State to -4- Mr. Yoorhees on the 7th of October, 1S4S: "The consent of "the neonie w -a. irresistably inferred from the fact that no civilized community could pos-4- sibly desire to abrogate an existing government when the alternative pre-4- sented would be to place themselves beyond the protection of all laws " 4- Perhaps it may still be hoped that the Supreme Court will likewise infer 4- that Congress in continuing such of our laws as were not contra A- in the 4- Constitution of the United States could not have intended to leave us with- 4-4- out a tribunal competent to decide what laws were thus excluded. 4. r4444444444 4- 4-44-4444-4 4444-4- 4" 4 4-4 4 4-4-4 admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see. tit to pre scribe." "The right of a nation to expel or de port foreigners, who have not been nat uralized or taken any steps toward be coming citizens of the country, rests up on the same grounds, and is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the coun try." Fong Yue Ting vs. United States, 143 United States 707. See also Lem Moon Sing vs. United States, 15S United States fttS, in which these decisions are re-affirmed. This Court also, in the case of Chow Pick Git and another, 4 Haw. 3S.", recog nized this principle. It is also the right of every independent state to prescribe the conditions upon which it will admit aliens into its terri tory, and further to revoke at will a per mission or license already granted to an alien to enter, and this, too, without no tice to such alien of its intention to thus revoke the license. This is conceded by all who took part in the argument in the case at bar. Being possessed, then, of these ampl powers and knowing, as we must pre sume, what the laws of Hawaii were on the subject of Chinese immigration, the United States, through Congress, its duly constituted mouthpiece, on the sixth of July last ordered that "there shall be no further immigration of Chinese into the Hawaiian Islands, except upon such con- htions as are now or may hereafter be allowed by the laws of the United States." The Republic of Hawaii has ac cepted and acquiesced in that and the uher provisions of the Newland's Reso lution. What is the true meaning and effect of that paragraph of the Resolu tion? In the first place, I am of the opinion that in the use of the term "immigration" Congress did not intend to limit the appli cation or the prohibition to such persons as can be called "immigrants" within the popular acceptation of that term, and to exclude from its operation those aliens who, having formerly resided in the coun try and having left with the intention of returning, seek to re-enter after such temporary absence: but rather that it was the intention to probihit, to the ex tent stated in the Resolution, the further "coming in" of Chinese, whether they had formerly resided in the country or not. I construe the first clause of the paragraph in question as being the equiv alent of "Hereafter no Chinese shall be allowed to enter the Hawaiian Islands." In re Panzara et al., 51 Fed. 27.", and in re Martorelli, G3 Fed. 437, are cited in sup port of the contention that the narrower signification should be given to the term "immigration." Those cases seem to me not to be in point. The Court in each of them was construing the statutes relat ing to the immigration of aliens other than Chinese, in which statutes the words "immigrants" and "alien immigrants" were used in describing the classes intend ed to be excluded. Those precise terms are not used either in the Resolution or in the United States laws relating to Chinese. The statutes and the reasons for their enactment were not the same as those now before the Court, Moreover, j the decisions of the United States Su- I preme Court show that under existing leg- t lslation in regard to the exclusion of Chinese, applicants for admission are not exempt from the operation of such legis lation solely by reason of the fact that they have resided in the United States and left with the intention of returning. See in the Chinese habeas corpus cases is consequences. The question as to a nermit from the Hawaiian flm-pm. -A- 4- 4" 4- Lem Moon Sing vs. United States, 138 Lnited States, 53S. In other words, the prohibition against entrance may apply to those returning after a temporary ab sence as well as to those who are strictly immigrants." if that appears to be the intention of Congress; and in this in stance, I believe that the intention was to use the term in the broader significa tion. The contention on behalf of the peti tioners is that this provision of the Res olution does not apply .to those Chinese to whom permits were issued according to Hawaiian laws, by the Hawaiian Gov ernment, prior to the passage of the Res olution, because to hold to the contrary would be to give to the provision a re trospective operation, and that this would be in this instance a violation of the rule of construction that a law shall be given prospective operation only unless the in tent is clear to give it retrospective force further that to hold that the provision applies to petitioners would cause great injustice and oppression because petition ers have come here in good faith on the strength of permits issuer' as above stat ed and without notice of the repeal of Hawaiian laws. If Congress had simply said, "There shall be no further immigration of Chin ese into the Hawaiian Islands," or, what is its equivalent, "Hereafter no Chinese shall be allowed to enter the Hawaiian Islands," it seems to me that there could be no possible room to douot but that the provision would prevent any and all Chin tEe from enteiing the Hawaiian Islands, whether former residents or not and whether or not possessed of a Hawaiian permit to enter issued prior to Julj' 7, Such language though very- brief, would be clear and explicit, and would not admit of the construction f.ito it of any exception. And THAT is the lan guage used in the Resolution, with this difference and this only, to-wit. "except upon such conditions as are now or mav hereafter be allowed by the laws of the United States." Congress has in these words stated one exception by virtue of which certain Chinese mav hereafter en ter these Islands. To say that such Chin ese as possess Hawaiian permits issued prior to July 7, 1n, shall also be exempt and be allowed to enter, seems lo me to be to add another exception to the prohi bition and one which Congress did not see tit to make. Where the lanxruaire used J.- the legislative body is clear and ex plicit and the enactment is one within its powers and in this case I think that it is so it is for the Court to enforce it even though its members might, for con siderations of injustice and hardshin have refused to so legislate were it within their province to do so. The Hawaiian laws in force just prior to the passage of the Resolution, author AaSQJxmEix Makes the food more f3vt BAKtWQ 02 r 1 -sm ized the Government to issue permits to Chinese to enter these Islands In thre classes of cases: first, to those who, re siding here wished to leave the country temporarily and return within a. year; ' second, to merchants and travelers, who had never been in the country before, but wished to sojourn here temporarily, tha limit of such sojourn being: fixed at six months: and third, to laborers, who, also, had never been in the country before, and who were permitted to remain in the country for an indefinite period upon con dition only that they confine themselves while here to certain specified, occupa tions. A bond was required In the sec ond class, conditioned that the principal would leave the country at or before the expiration of the six months, and In the third class conditioned for the faithful performance of the undertaking- as to oc cupation. See Penal Laws of 1$97, p. 5M et seq. Had the Hawaiian Government issued, shortly before July 7, 1S9S (and this Court does not know whether It did or not) permits for a large number of Chinese of the third class, it could not bo successfully contended, as I believe, that it was not the intention of Congress to revoke all such permits and to prevent their holders from entering: these Islands. Other matters were, by the terms of the Resolution, expressly continued as then existing, until Congress should otherwise: provide; but it is apparent that, in view of the policy of the United States with reference to Chinese, Congress wished to put an end at once to the entry of Chin ese into these Islands under any condl- -tlons other than those prescribed by- United States laws. And if it was the intention of Congress to exclude laborers of the third class above mentioned, how can it be held that it was not its inten tion to so exclude those of either the first or second class or of both those classes? It is the fact that they hold permits, if anything at all. which would Tive them the right to enter, and yet- all Miree classes alike hold such permits. It is not the fact of justice or injustice which would give them the right to land, for those are considerations which it Is for the law-making power, and not for the Court, to weigh. Uncertainty in tho 1 law would be the result if the Court went to determine each applicant's right to land upon the existence or non-existence of In justice or hardship. There is no doubt that the rule in the . United States is that "in construing stat utes so worded as to admit of a construc tion which would render them retrospec tive as well as prospective, a prospective ' operation only is to be given, unless a legislative intent to the contrary is de clared, or necessarily implied from the circumstances of the language used." 23 Am. and ling. Encycl. Law, p. 44S. In this case, the legislative intent is to be gathered from the language used in th Resolution itself, and Congress having said that there should be NO further im migration of Chinese into these Islands except as therein stated, it must bo pre sumed that that body meant what It said without any further qualifications. If any injustice or hardship results from their act, the responsibility therefor is upoh the law-makers and not upon this Court. It is true, I think that the DEPORTA TION of those Chinese, If any, inlawful ly In the Hawaiian Islands cannot for the present be enforced, because the statutes require that certain proceedings be had before a United States Judge in order to establish the unlawfulness of their pres ence, and no such tribunal as yet exists here. But it does not follow that because this is so Congress did not intend that the provisions of United States laws re- " lating to the EXCLUSION of those not yet in the country should take immediate effect. It may well have been the fact, and I think that it was, that Congress, while willing to allow those in the coun try unlawfully to remain until further order, was anxious to put an end at once to any further inlluex. Under the terms of the Resolution, when a Chinese person seeks to enter the Hawaiian Islands, the question of wheth-. er or not be is entitled to enter is to be determined in accordance with the United States laws, in other words, the United States laws relating to the immigration and exclusion of Chinese are now the rule of action here, are in force here, and ap ply in my opinion to ALL Chinese who seek to enter. It is urged that no machinery has been provided by Congress for the enforcement of the United States Chinese exclusion laws in these Islands and that conse quently it could not have been the in tention of Congress to make said laws applicable In tiie cases of those Chinese who hold return permits fssued nrior to July 7, ISUH. Assuming that it is true that there is no machinery as claimed, the ob jection, if it is good so far as to lead the Court to hold that it was not the in tention to give the Resolution a retro spective operation, must also of necessity compel tne court to hold that not even prospective operation can be given to it until Congress shall by further legislation provide the means for enforcing the laws. the only logical conclusion of the argu ment is, it seems to me, that until such time United States laws do not apply here and that Hawaiian laws continue in force. Yet, that the Hawaiian statutes so far as they are inconsistent with United States laws on the subject are repealed by the Resolution and that the United States laws are, prospectively, at least, extended is clear. - Moreover, the necessary conclusion as just stated would render the clause in the Resolution inop erative and meaningless. If Congress had sirmrly intended to leave matters as they stood with reference to Chinese immigra tion until it should further legislate, the clause would have been omitted; the gen eral provision continuing existing laws In force would have been amply sufficient. The language of the various United States statutes on the subjects of Chinese immigration and immigration of other aliens, are not as clear In their language as they might be in defining the relative powers and duties, in the premises, of Collectors of Customs and of Chinese In spectors appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Both are given certain powers to exercise and certain duties to perform, and between them can fully en force all Chint'se exclusion laws, but just where the dividing line between them is, just what an Inspector can 'do without the assistance of a Collector, it 13 more difficult to define. Another question not free from difficulty is whether the Col lector of Customs of the Hawaiian Islands is authorized to perform the various duties assigned to Collectors by tho United States Chinese Exclusion Laws, these Islands not having yet been made (Continued on Tage Two.) 'Pure delicious and wholesome POWOCR CO., NFW YORK. ?, -1 '1