The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-06-21
OPINION OF THE COURT PER BICK.
- ERToN, ].


from the decision and judgment of
the Chief Justice who heard the
case at chambers and rendered his
decision on January 18th, 1892,
which is as follows:
"The invoice of goods imported by
Quong Sam Kee Company per bark
Kitty from Hongkong, China, was
entered at the Custom House in
Honolulu on December I'd, 1891, by
Chu Gem, manager of the importing
firm. Chu Gem stated to the dep
uty collector that the pills in case
No. 18 on the invoice calling for
"China pills. he believed to be
opium pills and struck them off
from the invoice, the case to be sur
rendered to the Government. The
case was taken by mistake to the
claimants store and by him sent to
the custom house.
Case marked No. l0l was in
voiced las containing $500 pcs.
China pills valued at SIS, 10 pair
flower shoes, $500, 1 pc. ash flow
ers, 10 cents" This case was
seized on board the vessel by the
customs officer, and on examination
found to contain medicinal pills
containing opium, and the whole
invoice of goods, valued at $lS28. So
was seized, less what packages had
been delivered to the importer be-
fore seizure.
The object of this libel is to for
felt and condemn to the use of the
Government the case of pills and
the entire invoice, of which the
pills formed part.
These pills purport by their label
to be a remedy for the opium habit.
The chemist (Mr. CIV. Smith) who
analysed them says they contain
some vegetable extracts, etc., and a
small quantity of opium, and
would produce n the taker the eff
fects of opium, in greater or less
degree, according to the quantity
taken. The printed prescription
Ssays the dose is 20 pills for each
"mace" of opium which the taker
has been in the habit of using. Can
these pills be said to be a ssprepara-
ton OF opium?" The chemist did
not make a cumulative analysis of
the pills, but seys they respond to
the test for opium. The quantity
of opium evidently bears a small
proportion to the other ingredients
in the pills. And it seems to me
that the compound cogld hardly be
called in q strict sense a "prepara-
ton of opium" 1t would be more
appropriately named after its prin-
cipal Ingredient, which is probably
'ginseng." But the Legislature in
forbidding the "importation OF
opium or any preparation thereof, F"
evidently intended to exclude from
this Kingdom any compound which
contains opium and which is in
tended to be used as a narcotic.
Therefore, as the use of these pills
is within the evils sought to be
prevented by the law, 1 hold that
they are preparation of opium. "
Not only is their importation by
private parties forbidden, but by
the Act of 1886 (section Q, chapter
y if they are "found in any ship
within the limits of any part Of this
Kingdom such goods and articles
and the packages containing the
same and all merchandise or part Of
the invoice In which such good:
and articles were imported shall be
forfeited"
This case OF pills was found il
the bark Kitty at the dock in the
harbor Of Honolulu, and by stric
construction of the statute it anC
the invoice of which it is a part are
forfeited. The Deputy Attorney.
General contends for this construc
ton and urges that the prosecution
has not to show guilty knowledg,
or fraudulent intent to secure
forfeiture. l agree with this con
tention. But the claimant ma.
show by the facts of the case tina
he did not intend to violate the Law
and import the prohibited article
He shows correspondence with hi
agent in Hongkong in which h
countermands the order previousl.
sent for opium pills. The lette
reached China after the Kitty ha
sailed for Honolulu. He says h
believed case No. Is contained tn
prohibited pills and surrendered
to the custom house and suppose
case 101 contained common pills
not having opium in them. II
dealt in medicines and had ordere
common pills.
A strict construction Of the sta
ute would condemn the whole ii
voice on account OF the presenC
therein of case 18, which the in
porter repudiated and delivered
the customs. If the prohibited a
ticle was sent in AN invoice, incol
testably without the knowledge
the importer, by the constructic
contended for the innocent import
would be punished for the misdeet