The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-11-24

| returned to this company, and that he
never made any contrary statement
| If he had made that admission under
oath before the tribunal created by the
statute, / should have regarded it very
differently; but the admission was
made without caution by the Court or
without the particularly in eXamina-
ton usually required in such cases.
The admission was made to Mr.
| Doyle, Japanese interpreter, who had
no official position in this matter. He
was sent there to hunt up evidence,
but the Court did not meet until Mr..
McStocker, the Deputy Collector, met
the immigrants after the examination
was over.
The evidence of Mr.. Furuya:-I have
nothing to say against the gentleman's
character, it seems to me, amounted to
very little In the first place, he could
not identify the man as the one who
made the statement, and secondly he
did not make or see the entries of his
statement made by Mr.. Doyle. Both
of these gentlemen rely on that record,
and the record is not here-merely a
typewriter copy. 1t does not meet the
essential requirements of the statute;
it was not made by the Collectors
Court. l do not care to go into the
question of the credibility of the testi-
mony of these gentlemen as against the
oath of the petitioner, but l wish to
say that from what occurred here yes
terday it is very clear that these jap
anese immigrants are dull of under
standing, for they do not understand
the particular questions put to them in
every case. The interpreter here in
Court yesterday is gentleman of high
Il L, IL.
questions over and over, and had to
converse with the petitioner quite long
before he could venture to interpret,
showing that the Japanese is a lam
guage that requires particular skill in
order to get ones exact meaning. I
do not say that the Japanese language
is any different in this respect from
other foreign tongues, but we must
concede to the petitioner some of the
infirmities in the way of getting at his
exact meaning.
l do not think I ought to hold the pc
titiOner as having violated the pro-
visions of this statute by coming into
this country without the possession of
fifty dollars of his own, by reason of a
somewhat unguarded admission to a
party who had no official or judicial ca
pacity in the premises.
AS T6SdTQS the access OI parties 10
these immigrants to coach them as to
what their testimony should be in order
to obtain entrance into this country, 1
have little to say The testimony
would seem to exclude any such posi-
bility of such access. Both sides in
this case concede that there was no
opportunity for any person to visit
them and tell them to say that the
money was their own, and not to be re-
turned to the company. The testimony
of the manager of the company was
not altogether satisfactory as to his
ignorance of the immigrants possess
ing the requisite amount of money, but
he seems to have relied on the Off
cial inspection of these immigrants
had in Japan as to their having the
necessary qualifications.
| hope this case will, however, throw
more light on the propriety of having
Stricter examinations made hereafter
as regards these matters.
I agree with Mr.. Thurston that the
appearance of the petitioner, his health
and strength and dress, and the fact
of his wife coming with him and his
paying her passage, are matters stand
ing in his favor This may not apply
however. to the rest of these immi
grants This petitioner has certainly
shown strong proof, uncontradicted,
that he left Japan with two hundred
and sixty yen, how he obtained it,
what he spent of it, and what remains.
1 cannot consider him barred by the
statute.
l therefore order the petitioner dis
charged.
The Attorney General, making no OBJ
jectionS to similar orders in the cases
of the other petitioners, the same ord
ers may be entered in each case.
A. S. Humphreys, Thurston e Stan
ley. for petitioners; Attorney General
Smith, contra.
Honolulu, November, Is, 1896.