The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1897-03-19
From Wednesdays paiIyl

| decision yesterday mOIHlHS III TIC Cdsc
of Taku ct al, free laborers. The
Court room was crowded at 10 o'clock,
when the Court convened, and the
| interest was intense. The decision dis
missed the petition in both cases and
remanded the petitioners.
The opinion is prefaced by the in
! corporation of the petition, signed by
S. N. Ballou, to the effect that the
petitioners were qualified TO enter and
| locate in Hawaii under the treaty now
existing between the Emperor of japan
and the Republic of Hawaii. The pc
| titioners represented that they had
bona fide possession of not less than
/ $50: that upon their arrival they were
severally examined by duly author
lied inspector. They further allege
| that ever since their arrival they had
been unjustly restrained and deprived
of their several liberties, which they
were entitled to enjoy under the ex-
listing treaty between Japan and Ha-
wall; that the Collector General threat
ems to deport them to Japan. The
usual prayer is added.
The opinion is as follows: THE re-
turn made by the Collector General of
Customs, among other things, alleges
that 1T does not appear on the petit
ton that s. NJ. Ballou had any au-
thority to petition for any of the said
petitioners for whom writ of habeas
corpus had been asked The traverse
TO the return, also signed by Mr.. Bal
lou. alleges that all access to said pc
titioners and all communication from
them being purposely shut off by re-
spOndent, no direct authorization from
them was possible, but that S. NJ Bal
lou being retained with W. A. Kinney
by friends of the petitioners on shore
to bring this suit, has assumed to act
in their behalf as aforesaid in accord
ance with law
1T will be seen that the petitioners
are the Japanese immigrants in ques-
ton, and VET they do not sign nor
swear TO TIE petition. If the petition is
intended to be Mr.. Ballou's on behalf
Of the Japerese who are alleged to be
restrained of their liberty, he should
have made himself the petitioner Our
statute allows petition for the issu-
ance of writ of habeas corpus to be
signed By the party for whose relief
it was intended or by some person in
his behalf So far as we know the
authority of the person to make a pc
tition in behalf of party alleged to
be in restraint has never been ques-
toned or demanded to be known. By
the common law mere stranger had
no right to come into Court and ask
that party who makes no affidavit
and who is not suggested to be so
coerced as to be incapable of making
one, may be brought upon habeas cor
pus. But il is enough that the appli-
cation by whomsever presented shows
| probable ground TO suspect that the
| person in whose behalf it is made is
suffering an involuntary and wrongful
restraint or Imprisonment No legal
relation is now held to be necessary
between the prisoner and the appli-
cant for the writ. This is the view
laid down by Hurd on Habeas Corpus,
D. 211.
1.-THE failure TO state the fact that
the person for whom relief is sought.
is under disability through coercion to
make or authorize the application,
would not be sufficient ground, after
/ the issuance of the writ. upon which
/ 10 dismiss the writ or remand the
party alleged to be wrongfully re
strained yet it is desirable to put this
allegation in the petition. The writ
having issued, the presumption is
that the Justice was satisfied that
/ either the application was authorized,
or that there was reasonable ground
70 suspect that the persons in whose
behalf the application was made were
suffering involuntary and wrongful
restraint"
The return of the Collector General
of Customs then follows. This return
shows that the petitioners were ma
tives of Japan and aliens; that upon
their arrival in Honolulu they were
removed to the quarantine station and
there subjected to an examination by
/ the Deputy Collector General of Gus
toms to ascertain their qualifications
for entering this country 1t was de-
cided that oil the petitioners were not
entitled ~ land. because they were
-rrns nnd 1Hcl-ed the necessary quail
7oN-ions re~vired nv law for landing
/ r was then decided that they should
a held to await the return of the
steamer that they might be deported
The decision of the Court continues
\ "A lengthy traverse 70 +ha return was
presented for the petitioners by. Mr.
Ballou which substantially denies that
/ any legar- co-ducted examination OF
! the right ~ -h"se japanese 10 land was
made b. the Deputy Collector or that
any legal decision thereon was made
II is c'aimed in argument that the
Court should inquire into the proceed
ings. in order TO ascertain if the sta.
tute relating to the landing of aliens
in the Hawaiian Islands (Act 66 of the
Laws of 1S9g was complied with
Counsel urge that the decision alleged
in the return is nUr~6pal, because il
was not communicated to these Jap
anese, ard therefore they have had NJ
] opportunity to appeal therefrom to thu
Collector General as by the statute al
lowed. They also claim that the decis
ion is not binding, because no oppor
! tunity was allowed these Japanese o
consulting counsel, and that this wa
in deroFation NJ their rights under tn,
. treaty of Hawaii with Japan, which
provides that Japanese subjects ma,
| remain and reside in the Hawaiian
: Islands, enjoying at all times the sam,
privileges rs nav be granted to tn,
citizens rr rrNieets of any other ma
ton ore re which privileges is, as Sc
forth in 'he treaty with Spain, fol
instance -lat they shall have fire,
and easv Gooe-s 70 the Courts of Jus
tice in the -u-suit and defense of theil
rights. j. every instance and degree o.