The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-08-17
ON HABEAS CORPUS
Preliminary Decision By
Justice Frear.
Hearing on the Maui Issues Of the Chinese
Immigrant Cases is
Still On.

the following partial decision was rem ::
dered at the opening OF Court yester-
day morning: .
The petitioners arrived at the port
of Honolulu, one on the steamship CITY .
Of Picking, the other on the steamship
Gaelic, on July %, 1899. They were .
examined on board their respective
vessels that day as to their right TO ;
land, Mr.. J. X. Brown, Immigration
INSPECTOR under the Secretary OF the
Treasury of the United States, and Mr..
T w Giryin under the Collector Gen
eral of Customs of the port or Homo
lulu being present at the examination
of one of the petitioners, and MI. cir
vim at the examination OF the other
second examination of each petitioner
took place few days later, August ~
or %, on Quarantine Island, while the
petitioners were still in quarantine, IN
the presence of both MIR. Brown ana
Mr.. Girvin These officers found that
the petitioners were Chinese laborers
whose only claim of right to land was
the possession of permits which they
themselves confessed were issued for
others and purchased by them at Hong
kong. Mr. Brown thereupon decided
that they were not authorized to land
under the United States immigration
laws, and that they should be held
for transportation back to China. MI
Girvin decided to have them prosecuted
under section 1882 of the Penal Laws OF
Hawaii for attempting to enter TINS
republic without the necessary permit.
He consulted Mr.. Brown, in whose GUS
|tOdy they were, and obtained his con-
sent to take them into his (GlrVln s.
custody for the purpose OF prosecution
but with the understanding that they
were to continue in Mr.. Browns legal
custody and be returned to his actual
custody as soon as the purposes OF the
prosecution were fulfilled. Mr. Glrvln
then brought them from Quarantine
Island to the Custom House and sent
them by a customs guard to the 20
| lice Station. whittier he followed and
swOre out a warrant which was there
served on the petitioners. Mr.. G1rVln
was instructed by the Collector Gen
eral to request the marshal to hold Cne
petitioners until an opportunity shoulo
be afforded for sending them back 10
| China The Collector General was un-
der instructions from the Minister Oh
Finance of Hawaii to cooperate WITH
Mr.. Brown in the enforcement OF the
United States Chinese exclusion laws
which had been extended to these Isl
ands by the joint resolution OF Con
| gress anneXing these Islands TO me
United States. Mr.. G1rvln wrote W
the deputy marshal, who seemed 10 pe
acting for the marshal in this matter'
to hold the petitioners until opportu-
nitv should occur for sending them
hack to China The petitioners, after
one or two continuances, were tried on
August l and found guilty and SEN
fenced to pay fine of $40 each and to
nav costs. go each, and the usual
n,ittimus was made out committing
them to Imprisonment until the hne
should be paid or worked out, as pro-
yided by law. The magistrate VINO
tried the case also gave oral lnstruc-
tions (not a part of the legal Judg-
ment) to the marshal, apparently al
the request of Mr.. Girvin, that the pc
titioners should be returned to the
customs authorities at the expiration
of their sentence. The petitioners
sentences would have expired Aug
ust 26 by law, had not the portion OF
their fine not already worked on no'
been paid, as it was, on August IL. The
tailor then. August II, went to the
nlaces on the roads where the prisoners
were working respectively and toof
them back to the prison. Here, Whlle
) still having the petitioners in custody
he received word from the deputy mar
shall not to discharge the prisoners pu'
to return them to the Station House
This was done and when this writ was
served the same day the petltloher'
were at the Station House in the Gus
todv of the deputy marshal, under tht
orders. as he says, of Mr.. Brown. Inc
writ was served on both Mr.. Brow
and Mr. Hitchcock.
1t is conceded for the purposes
. argument at this stage of the case ina
. the Inspector. rendered decision du
verse to the right of the petitioners t
land and that his decision, whether
NAV be inquired into by the court
not was correct: also that it was pro
per for the Inspector to keep the Pc
titioners on shore in his custody unit
an opportunity should be afforded I
D send them back to China. 1t IS con
tended on behalf of the petitioners ina
they were in fact allowed by the III
= spector to go at large so far as ne wa
concerned, although they renamed /
the custody other OfhcerS' III oChe
words, that he allowed them 10 lanu
the local sense and that after IN
nese, though unlawfully, is once WIFI
in the United States not having COZ
tinued in the custody OF the prope
customs or inspecting officer, the Gus
toms or inspecting officer mas no at
thority to arrest him or deport hln
that the authority OF the inspector g
tends only to preventing a lanulhs dn
that the remedy by deportation Is d
entirely different one to be pursued b'
fore other tribunals. Let us assun
this proposition of law to be correc
The question of fact remains, did III
% Inspector lose the legal custody OF III
petitioners? In my opinion he a.
= not. He certainly intended to retal
such custody and the question IS, d
he surrender it in spite Of his inter
r ton. In my opinion it was competel
I for him to arrange with others TO man
. tain for him the actual custody pen'