The San Francisco call., 1899-08-24
Mr., NORTH
COMMITTED A
CRAVE ERROR
Is the Opinion of
Judge de Haven.
Mr.. 0TA WILL BE RELEASED
NOT AN IMMIGRANT, BUT A CIT
ITEM OE TuTS CTATE
Mr.. OTA WILL BE RELEASED
NOT AN IMMIGRANT, BUT a CIT
IZEN OF THIS STATE.

General Barnes appeared before United
States District Judge de Haven yesterday
morning with his client, 5. Ota, Japa-
uese merchant. member of the firm 0f Ota
& Sanada, 15IS Polk street. Mr. Ota had
resided in this city for eight years and
had been doing business here all that
time.
He left this city last March and went TO
Japan for the purpose OF buying q new
stock Of goods. His purchases were Of
the value OF $500, and he returned
on the HOngkong Maru on the 5th
of the present month. United States
Commissioner North prevented him from
landing and regarded him as an alien IN
migrant with a chronic disease. Ota,
through General Barnes, appealed to the
Secretary of the Treasury.
The merchant was taken or the steamer
by State Quarantine officer Cohn and
placed in the pesthouse for while and as
soon as he was removed from that insIi-
tuition he was arrested by a Deputy ImHd-
grafton Commissioner and placed IN
charge Of the japanese Steamship Com
pany for deportation TO Japan.
General Barnes raised the question yes
terday that Ota was not an alien immI-
grant and that therefore the immigration
Commissioner had no jurisdiction over
him, his client having resided in this city
for eight years and having acquired prop
he had departed on temporary business
trip did not give the immigration Com
missioner Jurisdiction over him.
Assistant United States Attorney Ban
ming, appearing for Mr.. North. conten ied
that the immigration Commissioner had
Jurisdiction not only OF alien immigrants
but also OF all aliens
The court said that it was thoroughly
convinced that Ota was not an Immigrant
within the meaning OF the statute and
that immigration Commissioner North
had committed d grave error in law in
refusing him q landing, but the court was
in doubt as 10 its jurisdiction 10 review
the act OF the Commissioner on habeas
corpus, because the petitioner had an ap-
PEAL 10 the Secretary OF the Treasury. The
question as 10 the jurisdiction Of the court
was thereupon taken under advisement.
Mr.. Banntngs argument on that point
was that the court had no jurisdiction 10
review the action OF the Commissioner.
Treasury, and in compliance with the law
had submitted himself to restraint volun-
tarily, and he therefore had no cause 10
plead that he was being Illegally deprived
of his liberty.
Judge de Haven remarked that he had
no doubt that the Secretary of the Treas
TRY would allow Ota 70 land as soon as
the facts Of the case were brought 70 his
attention.
General Barnes complained that the
steamship company had treated his client
in a manner which should nor be toler-
eted in Christian community. Ota, he
said, had been left without food or 4 bed
from Friday until Sunday, and when his
partner came to him with some clothing
and provisions the things were taken
away from him and he was kicked DOWN
stairs.
An agent Of the japanese Steamship
Company arose in the courtroom and fiat
ly denied the statement of General Barnes
An exhibition of bad temper and proba bI =
of violence was avarted by Judge de Ha-
ven calling the gentlemen to order.