The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-01-19
Supreme Court and the HabHaS
Corpus Cases.
CAN INQUIRE INTO DETENTION
Portion of Former Decis-
ion Reversed.

Yesterday morning uhe Supreme
Court rendered a decision in the Chin
csc habeas corpus petitions. reversing
. its previous decision regarding Court
jurisdiction.
The syllabus Of the decision is as
follows:
This Court has jurisdiction in habeas
corpus proceedings brought 10 inquire
: into the legality Of the detention Of the
. petitioners, 70 cOnstrue the United
. States laws relating to the immigration
: and exclusion of Chinese, which laws
have been extended to these Islands,
and 10 pass upon the validity of the
appointment of an officer claiming to
act under such laws and the extent of
his powers Hereunder.
. The decision in re Wong Tuck and
. others, ante, p. in so far as it holds TO
. the contrary, reversed.
The Collector General of Customs Of
: the Hawaiian Islands still has author
ity to prevent the landing on these
; shores OF Chinese who are prohibited
by existing laws from landing.
The Court in reversing its decision
on jurisdiction makes good the S. S.
: City OF Columbia libel suit decision,
: and ali other Federal questions which
have OF may come up.
The argument is replete with quo
tations from decisions made regarding
territories in the United States when
similar questions OF jurisdiction arose
there After an extensive argument
Judge Perry closes his decision as fol-
lows:
. The Supreme Court (of the Republic
! OF Hawaii) had the power to issue
writs Of b&beas corpus and TO inquire
; into the legality OF the restraint in
any and all cases of alleged illegal de-
tention, without any limitation what
ever. The power thus granted by our
own Legislature, Congress has con-
lfirmed and yalid&ted-the equivalent of
) a new grant to the same eXtent-in
and by the NeWlandS Resolution. If,
in inquiy'ing into the legality of the re-
straint in this case, it becomes neceS-
lSary incidentally to ccnstrue the United
States laws relating to the immigra-
ton and exclusion of Chinese. which
laws have been extended here. or to
pass upon the validity of the appoint
ment OF an officer claiming TO act under
such laws Or the extent of his powers
Hereunder, this Court has, we now be
Ilieve, the Jurisdiction to do So Neither
the exercise Of such jurisdiction by the
! Court, nor the grant or confirmation
thereof by Congress is, as has been
seen, Inconsistent with the Constitu-
ton Of the United States
, In C9Sac OT ASJpY,rr rTupi, Ot h
ers the question Of the extent of the
powers Of Inspector ]. X. Brown and
of the respondent McStocker, was not
definitely decided, although discussed
to some extent. We so now one step
further and say that in our opinion
the respondent MCStocker has author
ity TO prevent the landing upon the
shores Of these Islands of Chinese who
are by law prohibited from landing.
He had, Just prior to the transfer Of
sovereignty, this authority under Ha-
waiian laws which are not inconsistent
/ with the terms of the Resolution or
5 with the Constitution Of the United
States. By the terms Of the Resolution
therefore, that authority is continued
+ in him. The Court holding, as does the
Respondent McStOGker that under ex-
listing laws these petitioners are pro-
hibited from entering these Islands, it
becomes necessary TO express an opIn-
ion on the question of whether or not
=. said respondents decision in this case
or in similar cases is final and not re-
versatile by this Court.
S For these reasons we think that the
3 detention in these cases by Respondent
= McStocker is lawful, that the writs is
sued herein should be discharged and
that the petitioners should be remand
: ed TO the custody of said respondent