In re Frank B. Craig for a Writ Corpus

• Decision Date: 15 May 1911
• Citation: 20 Haw. 483
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF FRANK B. CRAIG FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

20 Haw. 483

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF FRANK B. CRAIG FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Submitted May 4, 1911.

Decided May 15, 1911.

ORIGINAL.

Syllabus by the Court

By section 55 of the Organic Act the Legislature of this Territory was vested with the power of taxation and also the right to legislate in exercise of the police power.

The business of emigrant agent is one which may lawfully be regulated as well as taxed.

Act 48 of the Session Laws of 1911, constitutes a lawful exercise by the Legislature of the power of taxation and of the police power and so far as the petitioner in this case is in a position to raise constitutional objections to its validity it is held to be not unconstitutional.

Constitutional objections to a statute will ordinarily not be considered when raised by a person whose rights are not affected.

E. M. Watson and R. W. Breckons for the petitioner.

Kinney, Ballou, Prosser & Anderson and J. W. Cathcart for the respondent.

ROBERTSON, C.J., PERRY AND DE BOLT, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY ROBERTSON, C.J.

The petitioner, Frank B. Craig, a citizen of the United States, was arrested and incarcerated at the police station, at Honolulu, by the sheriff of the City and County of Honolulu, pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the district magistrate of Honolulu, on the 7th day of April, 1911. The warrant was based upon a sworn complaint which charged that the petitioner and one J. C. Bell, on the 6th day of April, A. D. 1911, “did unlawfully engage in soliciting, inducing, procuring and hiring laborers to go beyond the Territory of Hawaii, and did then and there act as emigrant agents in that at the time aforesaid and place aforesaid, they, the said Frank B. Craig and J. C. Bell, did engage in soliciting, inducing, procuring and hiring certain laborers, residents of Honolulu aforesaid, more than thirty in number, but whose names are to deponent unknown, to go beyond said limits of the Territory of Hawaii, without obtaining a license so to do as by law provided and required, then and there and thereby violating Section 2 of Act 48 of the Session Laws of 1911 of the Territory of Hawaii.”

The petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus, and the same was issued and made returnable before this court. By certain oral rulings made in open court certain allegations contained in the respondent's return and certain other allegations contained in the petitioner's answer to that return were struck out on the ground that they were mere conclusions of law or otherwise immaterial. That the petitioner was arrested and imprisoned pursuant to the warrant, as alleged, is admitted. The questions presented for determination are whether, on any of the grounds advanced by counsel for the petitioner, the statute is invalid, and, as to some of those grounds, whether the petitioner is in a position to urge them.

The first, second and ninth sections of Act 48, of the Session Laws of 1911, read as follows:

“Section 1. Any person who individually or acting through or for another or others, is engaged in soliciting, inducing, procuring or in hiring laborers to go beyond the limits of the Territory of Hawaii, whether under promise of employment or otherwise, shall be deemed an emigrant agent within the meaning of this Act.”

“Section 2. No person shall engage in business as an emigrant agent without first obtaining a license from the Treasurer of each county or city and county in which such business is entered into or carried on. No such license shall be issued until the applicant therefor shall have complied with the following conditions:

First: He shall file with said Treasurer a sworn statement of the person or persons employing him and the place to which it is proposed that laborers shall be sent or taken and of the nature, terms and conditions of the employment or inducements to be given laborers he may recruit.

Second: He shall file with said Treasurer a bond in the penal sum of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) running to said Treasurer and his successors in office conditioned that he will in all respects comply with the provisions of this Act and that he will satisfy any judgments which may be rendered against him in any action either at common law or under statute for enticing, inducing or persuading laborers from their employers or for inducing laborers to break their contract of employment.

Third: He shall pay an annual license fee of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00).

Every such license shall be issued subject to all rules, regulations, conditions and restrictions which may be subsequently imposed by law.”

“Section 9. Any person who shall engage in business as an emgirant agent, without first obtaining a license as in this Act provided, or who shall violate any provision of this Act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall forfeit his license, if he has one, and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00) or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

The other sections of the statute impose restrictions and conditions upon the business and operations of emigrant agents.

Section 3, provides for the registering in the office of the treasurer of the Territory of the name, age and nationality of each laborer recruited; the name and address of the last employer of such laborer, and certain other information, and authorizes a charge of fifty cents for registering each name. Section 4, provides that every emigrant agent shall give a bond in the sum of one hundred dollars to each laborer conditioned for the faithful performance of any contract or promise made with or given to any laborer, a duplicate original of which to be filed in the office of the treasurer. Section 5, forbids the recruiting of any minor without the written consent of his parents or guardian, or, if the minor have no parent or guardian, then of the attorney-general. Section 6 (as amended by Act 83, Laws of 1911), provides that no emigrant agent shall induce, entice or persuade, or attempt so to do, any servant or laborer who shall have contracted to serve his employer for a specific length of time, to leave such service for the purpose of leaving the Territory without the consent of the employer, nor shall he aid or abet any such servant or laborer in leaving said service and the Territory without such consent. Section 7, provides that the sureties on any bonds given under the provisions of the act shall justify as resident freeholders of the county and as worth in real estate situate in the county the amount of the bond over and above all liabilities, and that such bonds shall be subject to approval as to form and sufficiency by the treasurer. Section 8 (as amended by said Act 83), authorizes the treasurer, in case of any breach of condition of any such bond, to enforce such bond in any court of competent jurisdiction for the use and benefit of the person injured by such breach. Section 10, repeals Act 57 of the Laws of 1905, except as to rights accrued thereunder and acts done in violation thereof. And section 11, requires persons holding licenses under the act of 1905 to comply with the provisions of this act except that payment of the license fee shall not be required during the unexpired term of any license held under the prior statute.

The validity of the statute is assailed on the following grounds: (1) That the license fee required by the statute is wholly unreasonable, and, as an exercise of the police power is void because of its restrictive and prohibitory character. (2) That the statute is in conflict with the provisions of section 10 of the Organic Act, that no suit shall be maintained for the specific performance of any contract for personal labor or service, and that no remedy shall exist for the breach of any such contract except a civil suit for damages for such breach. (3) That it is in conflict with the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. (4) That it abridges the freedom of speech and of the press in violation of the First Amendent of the Constitution. (5) That it is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment because–(a) It restricts the right of the citizen to move from this Territory to another or other parts of the United States, and so abridges his privileges and immunities. (b) It denies to persons within the Territory the equal protection of the laws, and is arbitrarily and unreasonably discriminative, inasmuch as the business of hiring persons to labor within the Territory is not subjected to a like or any tax, or to any regulations whatsoever; and because other persons duly licensed under section 1418c of the Revised Laws, are engaged in this Territory as general emigrant agents, and who are legally authorized to carry on the same business as that defined in the statute in question without being required to pay the license fee required by this statute and without being bound by its regulations and requirements. (c) That the statute unduly restricts the right of the citizen to contract, and amounts to a prohibition of the right to carry on a lawful calling and occupation, thereby depriving the petitioner of his property without due process of law. (d) That the statute is class legislation, discriminating arbitrarily and without reasonable basis. (6) That it is in conflict with the Fifth Amendment in that it unduly restricts the right of contract, and amounts to a prohibition of the right to carry on a lawful occupation, and deprives the petitioner of his property without due process of law. (7) That the act in question is one of three statutes, the other two being Acts 67 and 70 of the Session Laws of 1911, which, taken together, establish in this Territory a system of involuntary servitude. (8) That the alleged unconstitutional features of the statute are so connected with the general scope of the act that the whole should be held invalid.

The...