The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-03-19
emergency and no doubt did not MAKE their rules

emergency and no doubt did not make their rules
without due advice and elaboration. He moved
that the men be discharged from custody.
Mr.. Hartwell here informed the Court that the
Chinese Consul, Mr.. Along had received during
the day q number of letters from persons ut the
quarantine premises ON the reef who were IN the
same position as the petitioners that II had
been supposed that those men would be content
TO await the decision in the present case; but
that when Mr.. AfOno's son had gone over to see
them, he found them in Il very excited state
because a notice had been posted in the place
where they were confined, notifying them that
unless they made contracts to hire as laborers on
certain specified terms before noon that day they
would DE removed to jail. This notice had
subsequently been torn down but If was only
through the assurances given by Mr.. Afong's
son that their cases should be at once brought
before the Court that they had been quietened.
1t was therefore evident that this matter admit
ted~of no unnecessary delay. He called the at
<fention of the Court to the fact that an answer
was only required to the first and second clauses
Of the petition. He agreed with his learned
friend that no long time was required to answer
to the effect that the men were detained
pursuant to an ordinance of Privy Council.
Mr.. Austin said that the impassioned argument
of the learned counsel for the petitioners would
not be answered by him III a similar spirit, 1t
was absurd to say that the answer would be
ready in an hour. He could now state to the
Court the substance of the answer but could not
put it into a shape to be sworn TO.
Ultimately Mr.. Preston said that if he could
get the reply that afternoon he was satisfied to
adjourn argument to 2 P. NJ. on Friday, and as at
the suggestion of the Court, Mr.. Austin consent
ed to file his answer at 3 P. NJ, an adjournment
was made. At Il quarter past three the Court
resumed. and Mr.. w. o. Smith read the joint
answer of Joseph Spencer and III. A. p.
Carter to the allegations of the petitioners.
The answer alleged that Spencer was acting
for the Bnreau of immigration and under its
orders i'll keeping the petitioners in custody and
the reasons for these orders were two viz LIST.
That the petitioners came as immigrants and as
such were subject to an ordinance of the Privy
Council made on the Nth of January last Ga
copy of which appears in our By Authority
column) and ID, that they came on a ship with
aseversug hundred Others like them seeking en-
ployment, that they have been duly provided
with the opportunity of obtaining employment,
and that nevertheless they remain still unem-
plOyed and that therefore they were persons
without visible means of support and as such
would become amenable to imprisonment if
allowed to leave the quarantine establishment
Mr.. Preston said he traversed the statements
made on the answer as being untrue and on the
ground that if true they were not a sufficient
answer. He also demurred that the answer did
not alle9e that they came here as servants or
laborers.. They came here as passengers and the
ordinance did not apply to them. He asked
leave to demur and also to answer over, which
was granted. He undertook to be ready at 10
a. N. on Friday, but Mr.. Austin objected that he
did not want to go on with the argument till 2
PM. as already arranged. 1t was arranged that
the demurrers and replication should be filed at
10 A. NJ. and the argument on the whole case
taken in the afternoon.
Mr.. HartwelI then said that he would in a few
minutes apply to His Honor in Chambers for a
writ of habeas corpus on behalf of six men pas
sengers per Septima who were in a similar posi-
ton to the petitioners just heard. He wished if
1t were convenient to the Court and to Counsel
to have the cases taken together. Mr.. Austin
preferred that the matters should be kept seperate
and it was so arranged.
FRIDAY, MARCH 18th.
The replication and demurrer were, according
to promise, filed at an early hour.
The petitioners denied the trnth of the allega-
tons made in the return to the writ and also
claimed that if these statements were true they
disclosed no matters whereby they could be re-
tanned in the custody of the Bureau of Immigra-
ton or its agents. The causes of demurrer were
as follows [" That it is not alleged that the par
ties detained in custody are emigrants that have
been brought or admitted into this Kingdom as
servants or labOrers under license or permission
from the Bureau of immigration or contract with
the Minister of the Interior That the said sup
posed Ordinance (of the Privy Council) is illegal
and void; That the offense of vagrancy is punish
able by Statute Law and if the said parties are
liable to detention as Migrants they must be pro-
ceeded against under the provisions of such
Statutes and further that it is alleged by the
said return that the said parties have not been
allowed to become inhabitants of this Kingdom.
Ills Honor resumed the hearing of the case at
=. p. m. On Mr.. Preston rising to read the re
plicatiOn and demurrer.
Mr.. Austin asked for the indulgence of Coun-
and said that Mr.. Loo Ngawk had given the
security maintained in the return and that the
applicants might therefore be released.
Mr.. Preston said that this took him somewhat
by surprise, that the applicants knew nothing of
the matter, but as the Government did not
claim to hold, he would ask for their discharge.
This the Court at once ordered.