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

they may see fit to authorize or act in
their name
"These treaty provisions, as it seems
70 us. do not require that aliens be al
lowed counsel in cases of examination
under the immigration act in question,
for the reason that they refer only to
persons while resident in the Hawaiian
Islands. and not TO those who, like the
aliens in question, have not yet land
ed in these Islands. and also for the
reason that these treaty provisions ap-
NV only TO judicial proceedings. As
we shall see later on, the proceedings
under the Act in question to be con-
Quoted by the Deputy Collector, are of
an executive and not judicial nature.
It is not contended here that the Act
in question is in conflict with the
treaty with Japan. this Act making no
discrimination between subjects OF
other countries.
"There being nothing in the trefty
TO invalidate the Act itself, or the ac-
ton taken by the Deputy Collector, 1t
remains to consider whether the stat
ute has been complied with. Upon his
point we are greatly assisted by he
decisions of the Supreme Court OF the
United States. made under an Act OF
Congress, passed on March 3, 1891.
from which our statute was for the
most part taken. Both statutes ex-
clude certain classes of undesirable
persons, and confer upon certain ex-
ecutive officers the duty of inspecting
all alien passengers and deciding upon
their right to land in the respective
countries. that is, the authority to pass
upon the question whether they are
within the prohibition"
The Court then quotes at length
from the decisions of the United
States Court in which it has been de-
cided that Congress gave a "discre-
tionary power to an officer, to be ex-
ercised by him upon his own
opinion of certain facts and 'he IS
made sole and exclusive judge OF the
existence of those facts, and no other
tribunal. unless expressly authorized
by law to do so. is at liberty to re-
examine or controvert the sufficiency
of the evidence on which he acted.
Under these decisions 1.-The proper in
spection officers are required to go on
board any vessel bringing alien I'M
migrants and to inspectWand examine
them. and may for this purpose remove
and detain them on shore without such
removal being considered LANDING,
and shall have power to administer
oatbs. and to take and consider esu-
mony touching the right Of such aliens
TO enter the United States.
The Court. in its decision, sums up
the decisions of the United States SUI
preme Court as follows:
when the law has confided to a
special tribunal the authority TO hear
and determine certain matters in the
course of its duties, the decision or
that tribunal within the scope OF ITS
authority is conclusive upon all 9TH
ers.
at is contended that the decision
of tbe Deputy Collector of Customs is
not final because not announced to
the petitioners, so that they might ap-
peal. Having held that the decision
refusing TO admit them to land is an
executive function, formal notice OF the
decision to the petitioners is not es-
sential to its validity. We as Court
do not know whether the decision
NAV not have been announced to them
bv this time. The failure to announce
the decision is not ground to discharge
them from the restraint they are I'M
dergoing.
I'm a case. in re Chin Yuen Sing, a
United States Circuit Judge held that
the Act of 1891 left nothing for the
Court to inquire into, save only wheth-
or petitioner is an alien and whether
the Collector has made a decision. on
this latter point, the return, in which
he states that he has decided adverse.
" to admission, is conclusive. Even II
he had not so decided when the writ
was applied for, the signing OF such a
return is itself a decision The opln-
ion of the Deputy Collector cannot be
inquired into by this Court"
Mr.. w. R. Castle then moved that
both petitions be dismissed, and the
petitioners be remanded to the Collect
or General. The Court so ordered.