The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1895-12-30
GUILTY OF SMUGGLING.
so JUDGE PERRY SAYS OF THE
HENRrETTA's CREW.
Gale aud Anderson Get Eighteen
Months Crew Three Months
Fined $500 Each.

was the sensation in the Districr
Court again this morning. Wher
the prisoners had been arraigned
Judge Perry read the following
decision.
Republic VS.. w. B. Anderson,
ct al. Importing opium.
The questions presented for de.
cision in this case are: First-has
an importation into the Hawaiian
Islands been shown. Second-ii
such importation into a port not Of
entry is all that is shown, does
that constitute a violation OF
Section 1, Act Ia, of the
Provisional Government lawsl
Third-Does the evidence attach
guilty knowledge to the defendants
or any of theml Foufth--lf il does
upon the members of the crew, are
they criminally liablep
The evidence shows that the YES
sci and her cargo of opium was
found aud seized by Custom House
officers and police while lying at
anchor in the port of Keau, near
Waianae, Oahu, at a distance OF
about a quarter Of a mile from shore
that she was there with the intent
to unload the opium at that poit;
that her arrival in the port was vol
untary aud Mt in consequence
of distress nor to avoid the perils OF
the sea; and that Keau is not a port
OF entry.
The authorities hold that under
these circumstances the importation
is complete, adding, however, that
for fiscal purposes it must be into
some port Of entry.
In Gall sos, the court says;
"By the arrival of the vessel at the
port Of Bristol on the goth of June,
with an intent there to unload her
cargo, the importation was com
plete. The duties accrue on the
importation. and not on the entry
at the custom house
81 am we'll satisfied that an i'm
portation within the meaning OF
the statute must be an importation
into some port or district of the
United States with intent there to
discharge or land the cargo. = y
= if there be voluntary entry
into the port, with an intent to
land the good, It has been held that
the importation was complete, al
though within forty eight hours a
new destination was given TO the
Gall. 35S.
The duties did not accrue, in
the fiscal sense of the term, until
the vessel arrived at that port of
entry. "-5' Cranch 372 e U. S.
1851. That means. If anything,
that they do. accrue upon such
arrival.
The importation is complete as
soon as the goods are brought with
in any port with the intention Of
being unladen or sold there" I
Mason, 4o9.
1.-THE question has also been
asked, at what time the right to the
Government to the duties accrue in
the fiscal sense of the term. The
answer is, at the time when the
goods have arrived at the proper
port of entry" - Peters, 4o4.
II take it to be a well set
tied rule that the mere coming
into port, though without break
ing bulk, is prima facia evidence
Of an importation. But the pre-
sumption may be rebutted by
showing that it was occasioned by
accident or everything
l cannot find
any case in which it has been held
that the coming voluntarily into
port, with an intent to make. that
the port Of discharge, unless future
contingent destination shall after
arrival, be given to the property,
has been held not to be an importa-
ton. Much less can it be admitted
that a vessel can have a right to
come into port with goods on board,
which are absolutely prohibited
from importation, merely view to
ON an Interior disposition
of the goods. = = =
If such pretences were allowed,
it would be difficult to reach a
single case of fraudulent importa-
ton. until the property had been
removed beyond sthe grasp of for
fixture. ~ Gall, 244-6.
Keau not being a port Of entry,
does this importation come within
the meaning Of Section /. Act Iai
Or, does that act refer TO and in
clude only such ,jmportations IS
take place into ports of entry? 1t is
on behalf of the
that all cases of illegal
introduction Of contraband goods
in places other than ports Of entry,
come under Section 65s Of the
Compiled Laws, and that conse-
quently this case should have been
brought under that law and not
under Act IL. aud that the Legis-
lature could not have intended and
did not intend to provide by Act "
for the prohibition and punishment
Of that which was already made
punishable by the earlier statute.
Our statutes contain other in
stances Of repetition of this sort.
One Is the case Of larceny in the
third aud fourth degrees, where,
after one statute covering the sub
ject already existed, another was
passed, confined, however, to larceny
Of certain animals and poultry, and
the object of which apparently was
to provide more severe penalty for
the offense. 1t seems to be that a
prosecution for the larceny of poul-
try would not fail merely because it
was brought under the special. and
not under the general, statute.
In 4 Haw., 1877, where defendant
was indicted for having Struggled
opium into the port Of Honolulu,
the question was whether he should
be sentenced under Chapter 10 Of the