The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1899-08-18
Preliminary Decision BY
Justice Frear.
Nearins on tn MAJ Issues o. the Gu ntse
IMMIGRANT Cases Is
stu On.
From Thursdays Daily

WITH vi udNfir WI t"Hs "a''''
heard by Justice Fresr on Tuesday.
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 90, 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..
J. W. Giryin. under the Collector Gen
eral of Customs of the port OF Homo
lulu, being present at the examination
of one of the petitioners. and Mr.. Cir
win az the examination of the other. A
second examination of each petitioner
took place a few days later. August q
or rs, on Quarantine Island while the
petitioners were still in quarantine, in
the presence of both Mr.. Brown and
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 AZ 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. Mr..
Girvin decided to have them prosecuted
under section 1882 of the Penal Laws of
Hawaii for attempting to enter this
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 (Girvin'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.. Girvin
then brought them from Quarantine
Island to the Custom House and sent
them by customs guard to the Po-
lice Station, whittier he followed and
syore out a warrant which was there
served on the petitioners. Mr.. Girvin
was instructed by the Collector Gen
eIal to request the marshal to hold the
petitioners until an opportunity should
49,
China. The Collector General was un-
der instructions from the Minister of
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 the
United States. Mr.. Girvin wrote to
the deputy marshal, who seemed to be
acting for the marshal in this matter,
TO hold the petitioners until opportu-
nifty should occur for sending them
back 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
pay costs, $3.50 each, and the usual
mittimus was made out committing
them to Imprisonment until the fine
should be paid or worked out. as pro-
vided by law. The magistrate who
tried the case also gave oral instruc-
tons mot a part OF the legal judg-
menD TO the marshal, apparently at
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 &c by law, had not the portion Of
their fine not already worked off not
been paid. as 1t was, on August IL. The
jailor then, August IL, went to the
places on the roads where the prisoners
were working respectively and took
them back to the prison. Here, while
still having the petitioners in custody,
la el hn
shall not to discharge the prisoners but
20 return them to the Station House.
This was done and when this writ was
served the same day the petitioners
were at the Station House in the Gus
tody OF the deputy marshal, under the
orders. as he says. of Mr.. Brown. The
writ was served on both Mr.. Brown
and Mr.. Hitchcock.
IL Is conceded for the purposes of
argument AT this stage of the case that
the Inspector rendered a decision ad-
verse to the right OF the petitioners 10
land and that his decision, whether IL
may be inquired into by the court or
not, was correct; also that IL was pro-
per for the Inspector To keep the Pc
titioners on shore in his custody until
an opportunity should be afforded 10
send them back to China, II is con
tended on behalf of the petitioners that
They were In fact allowed by the In
spect0r To go al large so far as he was
concerned, although they remained In
the custody Of other officers; in other
words, that he allowed them 10 land In
the local sense and that after a Chi
nese, though unlawfully, Is once with
IN the United States not having con-
unned In the custody of the proper
customs or inspecting officer, the GUS
IONS or inspecting oiileer has no au-
,hority 10 arrest him or deport him /,
thai The authority 0f the Inspector eN'
tends only 10 preventing landing, aud
that the remedy Ny deportation Is an
enlllely different one 10 be- pursued be-
fore other tribunals let Va assume
tbs proposition ~ law 90 he correct
Tbs question ~ iaI romalns, dld tho
lnspeolor lose chs legal custody ol tbs
pstiilonsfsf w ny opinion DO dld
hoi, Ito certainly attended 40 roialu
sull Quhlody and iho auaaiian il AZ