University of Hawaii at Manoa Library

Home: The Annexation Of Hawaii: A Collection Of Document

Hawaii Organic Act: Congressional debates on Hawaii Organic Act

[ Previous Page ] -- [ View PDF ] -- [ View in MS Word ] -- [ Next Page ]

lodged in Oahu jail since the Independent took up the cudgels for the poor
men and criticized the outrageous laws which permit men to be treated as
criminals for refusing to work under contracts which virtually place them
on par with slavery. We certainly blame the infamous laws which force the
Galicians to take the choice of going to jail or returning to the slave drivers
on the sugar estates, but we fail to see how Mr. Dole could interfere in the
matter.   If he to-morrow asked the council of state to pardon the men who
refuse to work under a contract, and if a pardon were granted, the "civil"
part of the contracts would be enforced and every man rearrested. to go to
work in the cane fields. o Mr. Dole can no more break our laws than Mr.
Judd can.

Here is another sample of the humane conduct of those missionary sugar planters:

Dr. Alvarez. of this city, has also had the necessity for a public hospital o
brought very forcibly to him by reason of some Spanish plantation laborers
being thrust upon him for medical attention.   He is keeping them until they
are strong enough to work.   One young Spaniard, who was brought to the
Hawaiian Islands on the Victoria from Madeira and Spanish ports, has been
with him for nearly two weeks.   He is an educated man, having matriculated
at the University of Salamanca, taking the bachelor degree of that institution.
 Previous to coming to Honolulu he worked on a Maui plantation. He
was weak in his legs, entirely unused to agricultural work, and before long
was a fit subject for the plantation hospital. Instead of putting him there.
his contract was called for and later returned to him with cancellation of
contract marked thereon "By mutual consent."

In other words, they turned him loose.   They found he was not
capable physically, so they abandoned him.

He had a little money and came to Honolulu as a deck passenger, and is
now on Dr. Alvarez's hands, having been directed to him as a countryman of
his.   He was a very sick man upon arrival and is yet in a low state.   The
sewer contractors could not afford to give him work, as he was not strong
enough.   Through persistent medical treatment Dr. Alvarez has been able to
afford the man great relief, but he says he should have been in the hospital
from the beginning.
Here is another case:
	An old man, a Spaniard, nearly 60 years of age, is also under medical treat-
ment and being cared for at the Doctor's house.   He, too, was a plantation
laborer in Kau. Hawaii, and was a good worker.   One day he was in a small
pit in a cane field when three Japs, in a mischievous mood, hurled a large
stone upon him, breaking his shoulder and rendering him unconscious.   He
was found some three hours afterwards.   He, however, was given no medical
attention and was taken into a Portuguese family, which cared for him for
four weeks.
	The plantation gave him no attention, and he came to Honolulu via Hilo,
absolutely penniless, and still in a bad way with his broken shoulder.   He hod
no friends and was preparing to sleep on the slopes of Punchbowl, when some
Portuguese warned him that for that he would be arrested.   He asked the
Portuguese to take him to a hospital.   This man also was denied admittance
unless he paid in advance.   He told them he did not want that kind of a hospital,
but wanted a charity hospital.

Here, then, was one of their Slaves.    The very moment they are
unable to work they are cast aside.    They let them die.    What be-
comes of the Asiatics, if this is the treatment accorded Europeans
in that country?   And yet we have heard unlimited praise of this
gang of sugar planters, and we have been urged to adopt and

perpetuate forever the system of government by which these sugar
planters will be in absolute control, their courts established for

life, and their legislature one that no citizen of the United States
could vote for if he went to those islands.    Of course this has been

amended.   The bill is in fair shape.   With the adoption of my
amendment, so that the laborers on the remote plantations will
get notice of the termination of their contracts, and so that those
contracts which have been made since our flag went up will be at

Once annulled, we will give some measure of relief to this infamous
 condition which has existed there for the last year and a half,

I ask to have the report Of the immigration bureau published
in the RECORD and also the decision of the supreme court of
Hawaii upon this subject.    I ask for the adoption of my amend-

The papers referred to are as follows:

	Department of Interior, Bureau of Immigration,
	Honolulu, H.I., June 19,1897.
SIR: I have the honor to present the following report of a visit made by me
to the Olowalu Sugar Company's plantation. Island of Maui, on the 9th day of
June, for the purpose of investigating certain complaints made by the
Chinese contract laborers on that plantation in a letter to Mr. Goo Kim,
Chinese commercial agent, which letter I took with me. Ng Chan, Chinese
interpreter, accompanied me to Olowalu.
	When I arrived there the manager, Mr. Aug. Hanneberg, was several
miles away in the fields, and I had been there fully two hours before he re-
turned.   However, in the meantime I went on with my investigation among
the laborers.   Their letter to Mr. Goo Kim complained of persistent docking
of their wages and harsh treatment.
	With regard to the former complaint, I had before I went to Olowalu and
still have in my possession one of the plantation time books, showing the
Chinese laborers' time for each month from March, 1896, to April, 1897. The
book speaks for itself, and proves on every page that the men's complaint is
not without foundation.   The manager admitted he docked the men for
working slow; it was the law, and he would do it.   He is too severe, and if
this docking habit of his is not checked, there will always be trouble with
laborers at Olowalu.
	As to the second complaint, harsh treatment, I examined sixteen of the
laborers on the plantation,, ten of whom signed the letter to Mr. Goo Kim.  I
asked two of them-before the manager-if he had ever kicked them, and
they replied, through the interpreter, that not only had he kicked them, but
others, too.   Mr. Hanneberg denied their statements, but admitted to me be
had pulled the men out of their quarters for various reasons and pushed
them around.
Ah Mun, a free laborer, who has been at Olowalu some time, said that the
free laborers were treated better than those under contract.
The manager has a bad habit of going into the laborer*' quarters and pull-
ing them out
Lam Hing Wing, cook for a gang, said he never got full pay, though he
worked all the time.   Two Hawaiians told me they had worked on the plantation,
 but had left, as the manager was a very hard man to work for.
The laborers' quarters are the filthiest I have ever been in; in fact, the
whole plantation is in need of a cleaning up.   The inside of the rooms are
black with cobwebs, and it looks as if whitewash was unknown on the place,
Mr. Hanneberg said he intended to whitewash the houses at once. I sincerely
hope he has done so.
The treatment of sick laborers on the plantation is such that it practically
amounts to cruelty.   Near the beach, a good distance from the men's quarters,
 is a room about 12 by 12 used as a hospital.   The laborers call it the jail,
I found in it at the time of my visit five Chinese and four Japanese laborers,
all sick. The room was in a filthy condition. These sick  men  have to leave
their quarters early in the morning when the whistle blows and go to the
hospital, remaining there all day until the evening whistle blows, when they
are allowed to return to their quarters.   Is this humane treatment?   I hardly
think so.   I questioned Mr. Hanneberg on this matter, and he said that if the
men were allowed to stay in their quarters their friends visited them, and
there were other reasons given by him.
This is not the first time that complaints have been made against Olowalu.
place is isolated, and I think there is a good deal going on on the plantation
that is not heard of. Some time ago I talked to Mr. W. O. Irwin and
Manager Hanneberg about the complaints made by the laborers. The manager
should be made to understand that be must keep his hands off the laborers:
 must be less severe in his system of docking; must keep the laborers'
quarters in better condition, and, above all, must put an end to the confine-
ment in hospital. If he is not willing to do so, then no more contract labor-
ors should be allowed to go to Olowalu.
	1 have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
	Secretary Bureau of Immigration.
Capt. Jas. A. King,
President Board of Immigration.

In the supreme court of the Hawaiian Islands.  Special January term, 1899.
Honomu Sugar Company vs. A. Sayewiz.   Honomu Sugar Company vs.
Nikoleg Gzeluch.  Appeals from district magistrate of South Hilo, island
of Hawaii. Submitted January 19,1899.   Decided June 18,1899. Judd, C. J.,
Whiting, J., and Circuit Judge Perry, in place of Frear, J., absent.
Actions under the masters and servants act are civil actions, and should
be so entitled.   (Coolidge vi. Puaaiki, 3 Haw., 811.)
Certain provisions of the Constitution of the United States are not in force
in Hawaii during the present transition period, to wit: Amendments V, VI,
VII, VIII, and XIII, and Article III, section 2.   (See Peacock & Co. vs. Repub-
lic of Hawaii, ante, page 27. and Republic of Hawaii vs. Edwards, ante, page -.)
   Opinion of the court by Whiting, J.
The defendants are laborers brought from Austria under contract to serve
the Honomu Sugar Company, whose sugar plantation is situated in the dis-
trict of Hilo, island of Hawaii.   Quitting their employment in September,
1898, and before the expiration of the period of three years, which they had
contracted to serve, they were arrested upon warrants issued by the district
magistrate of South Hilo, and tried and convicted upon the charge of desert-
ing their contracts of service.   Zeluch was sentenced to imprisonment at
hard labor " until he should consent to return to his master and consent to
serve according to law," and Sayewiz was sentenced to pay a fine of $5 and
costs and to be imprisoned at hard labor until said fine and costs be paid.
The masters and servants act, section 1384, Penal Laws, is as follows:
"If any person lawfully bound to service shall willfully absent himself
 such service, without the leave of his master, any district magistrate
 of the republic, upon complaint made under oath by the master, or by any
one on his behalf, may issue a warrant to apprehend such person and bring
him before the said magistrate; and if the complaint shall be maintained the
magistrate shall order such offender to be restored to his master, and he
shall be compelled to serve the remainder of the time for which he originally
Section 1385 of the same act is as follows:
"If any such person shall refuse to serve according to the provisions of
the last section or the terms of his contract his master may apply to any district
 magistrate where he may reside, who shall be authorized by warrant or
otherwise to send for the person so refusing, and if such refusal be persisted
in, to commit such person to prison, there to remain at hard labor until he
will consent to serve according to law. And in case such person so bound -
as aforesaid shall have returned to the service of such master in obedience
to such order of such magistrate, and shall again willfully absent himself from
such service without the leave of his master, such district magistrate may
fine such offender for the first offense not exceeding $5, and for the second
offense not exceeding $10; and in default of payment thereof such offender
shall be imprisoned at hard labor until such fine is paid; and for every sub-
sequent offense thereafter the offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor not
exceeding three months, and at the expiration of any such imprisonment
the magistrate shall order such offender to be restored to his master to
serve for the remainder of such original term of service."
The defendants appealed on points of law; in the Sayewiz case, as certified
to us, " that the proceedings, arrest, trial, and judgment are contrary to the
Constitution of the United States, and that sections 1384 and 1385 (Penal Laws
of Hawaii), under which these proceedings are had, are contrary to the 
Constitution of the United States;" and in the Zeluch case, "whether or not the
proceedings had in this case are in conflict with the Constitution of the
United States and therefore void, and whether sections 1384 and 1385 of the
Penal Laws of 1897 are contrary to the Constitution of the United States and
therefore void."
These are the only points certified up by the district magistrate.   The 
defendants claim that the proceedings and the law under which they were
charged and convicted are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of
the United States in that-
1. The masters and servants law directly contravenes the thirteenth
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides that
" neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States or any place subject to its jurisdiction."
2. The offense comes within the provisions of Article V, amendments to
the Constitution of the United States, requiring a presentment or indictment
by a grand jury.
3. The law under which defendants are imprisoned denies to them the right
of trial by jury (in the first instance) and to that extent the protection of
the Federal Constitution.   (Article IV, section 2, and the fifth, sixth, and
seventh amendments.)
4. The masters and servants act makes imprisonment for life a possible
punishment for violating its provisions, in contravention of Article VIII of
the Federal Constitution.

Return to Top

Terms of Use  |  UH Mānoa  |  UH System  |  Ask Us
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Library  |  2550 McCarthy Mall  |  Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA
808-956-7214 (Reference)  |  808-956-7203 (Circulation)  |  808-956-7205 (Administration)
808-956-5968 (fax)  |