The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-08-22
ON HABEAS CORPUS
Continued from Page II


actual custody Of the petitioners for the
purpose of prosecuting them for viola
ting the Hawaiian immigration laws
| by attempting to land without the nee
cssary permit. | hold that the inspect
or might lawfully intrust the actual
custody to others and that in this in
stance he had intended TO retain and
did retain the legal custody in him
self
1t was next objected that the inspect
or was without authority to decide up
on the right of the petitioners TO land,
the contention being that under the
statutes the collector of customs alone
had such authority. On the other
hand, the opinion of this court in the
case of In re Wong Tuck, II Haw 500,
623, was relied on to show that the in
spector did have such authority.
stated that such seemed to be the opin-
! ion of the court Tin which | had ia
ken no part, not being presently and
| that while / did not feel certain in my
own mind as to the Soundness of the
reasoning upon which that opinion was
based, l should rule in accordance
with it for the time being, but should
reserve the question for final decision
until the close of the case. | may add
here that the court did not intend to
definitely decide the question in the
Wong Tuck case. See In re All Ho, h.
666
| Counsel for the petitioners then Of
! fered evidence to prove that the petit
TONERS were citizens by birth in these
Islands. This evidence | admitted on
the ground that although the decision
of the appropriate officers adversely to
| the right of an immigrant to land was
under the statutes ordinarily final, yet
| that such was the case only when the
officer acted within his authority and
| in pursuance of law, and that it was
competent for the courts to inquire in
| to jurisdictional facts and that since
| the decision of the appropriate officer
| was final in the case of an alien only,
| it could not be final in the case of a
citizen. The testimony introduced on
this point showed clearly that the pc
titioners were Chinese laborers who
had never before been in this country
and that they were born in China and
had attempted to enter these Islands
upon certificates of Hawaiian birth
which they had purchased from. other
Chinese in Hongkong, and consequent
ly that they were not entitled to land
here. 1t also appeared not only that
the inspector made a correct decision
but also that he had given the petition
ers a fair hearing and had proceeded
strictly according to law in every re-
spect, provided he had the requisite au-
thority So clearly did this appear
that counsel for the petitioners did not
deem it. worth while to argue the mat
ter.
Argument was then heard upon the
o6 all
ruled upon temporarily but had been
reserved for final disposition until the
close of the case, as to the authority of
the inspector to decide upon the petit
TONERS right to land. Argument was
heard at the same time upon another
question which the Attorney General
then raised as to the jurisdiction of
this court to inquire into the authority
of the Inspector, inaSmuch as he was
a Federal officer. | have considered
each of these questions very carefully
but have finally come to the conclusion
that it will be unnecessary to pass
upon either Of them and such being the
case / deem it best under the clrcum-
stances not to express my opinion upon
them.
| will assume for the purposes of
this case that the inspector is without
authority to decide finally upon the
right OF the petitioners to land, but
that as between him and the collector,
the latter alone has such authority.
But does it follow that the petitioners
must be discharged?
The law explicitly and peremptorily
forbids the entry of the petitioners into
these Islands and the inspector is an
officer appointed under the law TO en-
the court order their discharge, and
permit them to enter? 1t has been
shown to the court that the petitioners
are not entitled to land, and the in
spector is an officer appointed by the
Secretary of the Treasury under the
act of Congress (2S SITS. at l.. $500 max
ling an appropriation, ITO prevent un-
lawful entry of Chinese into the United
States, by the appointment Of suitable
officers to enforce the laws in relation
Thereto Even though the collector
has not passed upon the right OF the
lpetitioners to land, they are in fact not
entitled to land. and the inspector is
one of the officers appointed to prevent
their landing. The law does not say
that the petitioners may land unless
! the collector decides otherwise, but
that they are not entitled to land at ALL
| To illustrate: The master of vessel
! is forbidden to allow Chinese to land
| contrary to the provisions of the law.
! If he should refuse to permit Chinese
passengers to land who were not en-
| titled under the law to land. should
1.-THE court on habeas corpus, compel
! him TO allow them to land because the
Icollector had not decided adversely to
their right to do SO? Certainly not.
The court could inquire into their right
| to land and discharge them if such
right should appear. But if such right
should not appear, the court would re-
mand them to the custody of the mas
ter
The provision of the statute (2S SITS.
at l.. 500 that, In every case where
an alien is excluded from admission in
To tho limited States In6er any law on,