The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-03-16

of practice. that the Court has au-
thorlty TO make such rules as it sees
fit as TO the practice in this particular
case. He held it was quite in the au-
thority of the Court TO allow pleading
In the nature of demurrer before the
return of the body of the petitioner in
Court. Mr.. Kinney argued that dila-
tory pleas delaying the proceedings.
would defeat the effect of habeas corp
us, and that all points on the merits
and the law of the case should be ar
sued on the return. Mr. Cooper main-
tanned that Mr.. Ballou must show hisA
authority 10 sign the petition on the
Dehaif of the petitioners
The Court convened at 40 O'clock
Chief Justice Judd announced that the
Court had come to the conclusion and
that 1t would establish its own prac-
tlce and consider that all points should
be established by the writ Dilatory
proceedings might defeat the purposes
OF the writ. The Court said that III all
matters were put before the Court in
the return. the Court might decide on
the question.
The return to the writ was read by
Mr.. Cooper. 1t stated that the petit
TONERS were aliens, that they had been
properly examined by the inspector:
that the inspector had used his dis
cretion and had rejected them. He
also claimed that the Collector Gem
eral could review the finding of the
inspector. but the petitioners had not
sought TO review it, The Court held
that all objections to the writ must be
declared in the return. The traverse to
the return recited the history of the
arrival of the Japanese, and alleged
that the authorities had not given the
Japanese immigrants the opportunity
to be fairly heard; that the proceed
ings were secretly held, and no coun-
sci was permitted to aid the immi-
grants and that the proceedings were
in the nature OF a scheme on the part
of the Government to send them back
without proper consideration of the
case
Mr.. Kinney then argued the case at
length. He charged that the Govern
ment had violated treaty rights with
Japan, under which the Japanese were
entitled to the same protection as the
citizens of the most favored nations
He cited the treaties with Italy, Spain
and Switzerland, under which the cit
iZens of these countries are entitled to
the full protection of the Courts. 10 the
advice and assistance of counsel.
He claimed that the treaty with
Japan was violated by the inspection
of the immigrants. without clear
knowledge on their part of the object
of the proceedings; that they had been
carefully kept, SO that no counsel or
friends could get access to them: that
the application of his firm for per-
mission TO see them and consult with
them had been denied.
Mr.. Kinney also urged that a ques-
tion of such importance as the exclu-
sion of the immigrants should not be
left to the decision of an inspector; that
it should be passed upon by the Courts;
that if the Courts were shut out it
would only bring in diplomatic inter
vention. The AngIo-Saxon would not
tolerate the treatment which the Jap
anese suffered at the hands Of the
Government.
He said that Hawaii could not fight
other powers. Her security was in
doing what was right. 1t was effront-
cry, he said, to stand on the record
made by the Government. The petit
TONERS were now in the dark as to
what the Government had done with
them. They could not appeal from the
inspectors, because they had not been
told what the decision was. The point
that there could be no writ issued un-
til there had been an appeal to the
Collector General was absurd, because
there was no decision from which they
could appeal.
Mr. Kinney claimed that the Su-
preme Court must decide this question,
and not Mr. WcStocker. Even If the
had been open, and the
Japanese had counsel, the Court could
review the decision of the inspector.
so far as to see that he had proper and
sufficient evidence before him. That
was the rule, in the Courts of the Uni
ted States: the Executive must de-
eide, but the Courts Will see that he
does it on sufficient evidence. He can
not act in an arbitrary manner. The
Courts must protect all alike.
Mr.. Kinney maintained that although