The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1897-03-19
SUPREME court.
Decision Handed Down RGnaldilg
japanese Immigrants.
FREE LABORERS WERE ALIENS
Cannot Change Decision
of Collector General.
Proceedings of Collector Are of
Executive Nature-Act Does
Not Discriminate.
From Tuesdays paily.O

(From Tuesdays Daily)
The habeas corpus case in the Su-
preme Court attracted fully as much
attention yesterday as on the first day
Again the Court room was filled with
expectant Japanese, who patiently
waited through the long morning for
the Court to render a decision. But
no decision was rendered yesterday.
II will not be made known until 10
o'clock this morning when the Court
will again convene.
There was but one session of the
Court yesterday on the case, the morn
ing session. Before adjourning at u
o'clock the Court announced that if it
was pleasing to both parties. the next
case, that of the japanese contract la
borers, would be taken up at once, so
that if one had any bearing on the
other the Court might be able to come
TO a decision without asking for more
testimony. Both sides agreed that the
second case would be on exactly the
same argument as the first. and the
Court then decided that il would be
unnecessary to argue the second case.
The first case is the one just argued,
that Of the free laborers, who claim
they are not paupers. The second is
similar. but there are concerned in il
only the japanese who showed con-
tracts, claiming that on the strength
of these contracts they had ability to
maintain themselves for three years.
The Government claims that the cases
have been decided. and that the Col
lector Generals decision is final If the
Court sustains their position. then the
cases will be dismissed II the Court
decides against their claims, then
each case must be argued and testi-
mony brought in.
On the opening of the argument yes
terday morning. Minister Cooper in
sisted that Messrs. Kinney and Ballou
show their authority to act for the Jap
anese confined in the quarantine build
ings Mr.. Kinney replied that, under
the habeas corpus act, any one could
apply in their behalf. and the Judge
who granted the writ must be assumed
to have inquired into their authority,
if any was needed. Minister Cooper
said that when the japanese asked
permission to communicate with coun-
sci. il would consent. Mr. Kinney re-
piled that the men had been. and were
now locked UP so that they could not
communicate with any outside persons,
and therefore could not reach counsel.
or any one else. Minister Cooper then
said that Mr. Kinney had formerly
warned every one against japanese
immigration. but now he was taking
the opposite stand, and was attempting
TO force them into the country against
the wishes of the Government. He
questioned Mr. Kinney's motive in
making his change.
Mr.. Kinney. replied that his conduct
was perfectly consistent: that he was
as much opposed to indiscriminate i'm
migration as anyone. but he was not
now trying. nor would he try to keep
the japanese out of the country, as the
Minister was, by the misuse of the Ju-
dicial powers.
Minister Cooper then proceeded to
contradict the allegations set up in the
traverse. He characterized Mr.. Kin
ney's argument as an assault upon the
Government He denied any intention,
or act of bad faith on his own part or
on the part of the proper officers who
had acted in this case Mr.. Kinney OBJ
jected to q specific denial. as the Min
lister was not on the stand and could
not be oss-eXamined. He held that
for the sake of argument the allega-
tons were assumed to be true, and
that the only question at issue was
whether or not the findings of the
Deputy Collector. that the immigrants
were disqualified from landing, was
conclusive and could not be reviewed
by the Court. The Court ruled that j.
was hardly proper orally to argue the
question of the traverse. The Court
sustained Mr.. Kinney in his views.
Minister Cooper then argued that the
treaties which allowed counsel to those
from other countries applied only to
citizens. not TO aliens. as were these
men at quarantine. He said that the
burden of proof was on them TO show
why they should be admitted He cited
American authority to show that IN
der the act of 1891 the decision of the
Inspector of immigration was final
He also quoted English cases showing
that the mere possession of $50 did not
insure entrance into country, that
the inspectors had authority TO prevent
them from entering if they were unde.
sirabie immigrants or aliens.
Mr.. W. R. Castle followed Minister
Cooper. He said that there were two
propositions before the Court One wa:
the finality of the inspectors decision
and the other whether or not the Cour-
is bound by treaties with other nations
He thought that only in the case o.
fraud could the Court review the decis
ion of the inspector. With this excep
ton the Court could not go behind tn.
return. He pointed out that the de
cisions cited by the petitioners counse
were made in the United States priol
to the last immigration law of 1891
that since that law was passed, tht
Courts held that Congress had giver
the determination of the immigrant:
qualifications entirely to an executive
officer. The Hawaiian law was similar
to the American law He cited, also
the decision of the Supreme Court Of
theUnited States that Congress has the
power to override treaties. If the Leg,
islature power of Hawaii had passed
q law overriding the treatry with