CHINESE ADMISSION.

INTERESTING LAW POINT

CHILDREN BORN IN NEW ZEA-

LAND.

.'. An interesting case came before the Full Court, at Wellington recently -concerning the admission of Chinese to the Dominion. It was a motion -for a declaratory judgment respecting the admission of Chinese children born in New Zealand after being ■sent to China for education.

The plaintiff in the case was Joe I/urn, storekeeper, of Wellington, and the defendant the Attorney-General. . The plaintiff was represented by Sir John Findlay, X.C;, with him ]Sfr A. de B. Brandon, and Sir John Salmorid, X.C, appeared on behalf of the Attorney-General. The bench was occupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Justices Cooper, Sim, and Herdman. "The facts agreed to by the parties were that Joe Lum, a.'- Chinese resi-; dent in.New Zealand, but not naturalised, was married to a Chinese woman in the Dominion on November "28th, 1905. As issue of the marriage there were six children, all born in Wellington. The plaintiff' .is about to visit China and take with him his children, the eldest of whom is about 12$- years, to be educated in their native tongue. On an application to the Department of . Customs, the plaintiff was informed that unless the children returned to New Zealand within\four years they would not be allowed to land without the? payment of the poll-tax of £1000 and passing the tests required by sections 31, and 42 of the Immigration Restriction Act. It is not improbable that circumstances will keep the children in China for a longer, period than four

years. \ The court was. asked for an order interpreting the enactments, concerning the facts disclosed, the principal* question involved being whether the poll-tax would be payable for the children even if they returned after four years. In arguing the case, Sir John Findlav contended mainly that the child-

ren piiist be regarded as natural-born British subjects. It was absurd, he ' said/ that children bora, in this country who happened to go to China for education should on return be regarded as Chinese immigrants subject j to poll-tax. A literal interpretation of the enactments affecting the case , v-ould mean a gross hardship. _ . . Sir John Salmond, replying, said there was no hardship possible. The Immigration Restriction Act *proyided for full discretionary power for ex•omption in proper cases. These children might, be away for twenty years, educated in the Chinese tongue,

thoughts, and habits, and for all practical purposes they would be Chinese. Sir John iTindlay: We will have to. rely on the generosity of the Solici-tcr-General, I suppose. Sir John Salmqnd replied that the niatter of discretion would rest with the Minister and the Customs Department. It might be argued that the word "naturalised" in the, enactment had a special legal meaning. It meant the transformation, of an alien into a British subject. The Chief Justice: A natural-born subject should surely have more rights than a naturalised subject;? Sir John Salmond observed that there was an express exemption of a naturalised subject, and his contention was that it did not include the natural born. The court reesrved judgment'in the ease.

"You would scarcely knew we'd ever' had a ship torpedoed," said a 'c/ffioer, ; describing tfhe jscene at Oardiff. In tihat port alone there were no fewer than 215 large steainerA, ranging fi-om 500 to 5000 tons. The saa7ie stats of affairs is-to be seen

j-j.ll along the coasts, at London, / Portsmouth, Barry, Swansea-, Liverpool, and Glasgow. Hundireds of ships are entering part, and, it i may be added, there is no hurry eitiher in loading m- discharging. "Yes, quite like old times!," said the sailor. "Why Manchester recently/ in the course of ono day, loaded, and discharged 20,000 tons of shipping."