The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-11-24
OPINION OF THE COURT, DELIv
Erred ORALLY.

This case presents a great many
novel points, and it is hardly expected
that my decision, which is rendered
with very little study, should be as
complete thorough and logical as If
had had more time to put 1t into shape.
| wish first TO speak with regard TO
the Act in question, being Act So OF
March 1, 1894, respecting the landing of
aliens in this country. 1t was the evil
dent intention of the Legislature, fol-
lowing the example of the United
States. to create a special tribunal for
the examination of qualifications of
persons coming from foreign countries
to entitle them to land here. In Sec
ton 2, the tribunal for this port of
Honolulu is either the Collector-Gen-
eral of Customs or his deputy. 1 pre-
fer to say his deputy, for the reason
that the Collector General is made the
court OF appeal of last resort, and his
deputy should act as the original court
in order to have such appeal available.
In the other ports of these islands, the
court is the collector of customs for
those points. The expression ''the in
speeding officers is used. That seems
to me TO mean, for this port, the deputy
collector and no other person, and
power is vested in him that cannot be
delegated.
No court can delegate it's functions
except by statute. A court may by
statute refer accounts to referees or
masters: but in this case the examina-
ton should have been made by the de-
putty collector. 1t so happened that in
this case both the Collector-General
and his deputy were away at the time
the steamer with these immigrants
arrived, but the immigrants are not to
be held responsible for that. / say this
because, in my opinion, these men can
not be deported as upon a decision or
judgment of the deputy collector under
the statute.
1 wish to commend the Attorney
General for his frankness in stating to
the court that he did not rely on the
proceedings of the customs authorities
under the statute which in other in
stances, if regular, might be done.
The power of the court to review the
decision of the collector is not invoked
in this case, for the reason that have
been called upon to act as an original
court upon the facts in the case, and
the government relies on the statute
limiting the right of aliens to land as
the process of law to deny the petit
TONERS the right to land because they
have not visible means of support"
section that the possession of fifty
dollars is exclusive, that is, that the
alien must have that amount of money.
A man cannot be admitted If a pauper
or person with no visible means of
support. But a man might have a
cargo of valuable goods with him and
yet not have over fifty cents cash in
his pocket. The statute must have a
sensible Interpretation. man might
have a thousand dollars in foreign
currency and yet not be provided with
coin current in this country. l think
that the statute is extremely liberal in
that the possession of fifty dollars is to
be taken as evidence of his not being
a pauper, because fifty dollars, as we
know, is not sufficient to support man
for any considerable length of time.
In regard to the constitutionality of
this Act. l do not undertake to ex-
pound the law on that question eXhaus-
lively after such a limited cOnSidera-
ton of the subject. Even though there
exists a treaty between us and Japan
which allows free lOcomOtiOn of the
respective subjects of those countries
and the right of ingress and egress,
yet the government has right to exer-
else it's police power and enact whole
some regulations in order to protect
its own citizens. Certainly if a man is
afflicted with a loathsome disease or
one dangerous to the community, the
police power of the state has perfect
right to make and enforce such laws
as would prevent their landing here.
My impression is that the law is not
unconstitutional or in violation of the
treaty, and similar laws under similar
circumstances are generally upheld.
AS regards the facts in this case. 1t
has been shown, and it is conceded,
that the petitioner had in his posses
sion certain certificates of deposit Of
a Japanese bank, or a Japanese govern
ment bank, which understand is some
thing like a National Bank in the
United States, calling for 1O5 Japanese
Yen. These certificates are readily con-
vertible into the legal tender of this
country by a local Japanese bank; and
I distinguish this case from the one
before Judge Cooper, where a check
to the amount of fifty dollars was in
question. In that case the ability of
the drawer of the check to pay cannot
be taken for granted. A check or order
is a very different thing from certi-
ficate of deposit payable to bearer. The
legislature evidently intended that the
possession of what was legal tender in
this country should not be the only
Interpretation of what was fifty dol
lars in money" Suppose we should
have come here some Armenian immi-
grants. They might have possession
of Turkish coins worth no more than
their bullion value, but not legal ten
der of this country. 1t would be I'M
Just to exclude them on that ground
if the value of their coin was $50.
United States greenbacks are not legal
tender in this country although readi-
Iy accepted as current here. The sta
tute must have a sensible interpreta-
ton. From the testimony of the clerk
of that bank, these gen certificates are
readily convertible into coin. I hold
Of 20 Io