The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1899-01-06
THE DECISION REVERSED
PERMIT CHINAMEN REFUSED A
LANDING.
Supreme Court Sustains Agent Brown
and Remands Petitioners to His
Custody.

a decision filed by the supreme
court today in the last batch of Chi
nese habeas corpus cases, disagrees
from the former opinion of Chief JUS
tice Judd and reverses the situation
completely.
In other words the Chinese petition
ers, who claimed the right to land in
Hawaii by virtue of certain permits
issued to them prior to annexation, are
remanded back to the custody of Col
lector McStocker TO be deported or
disposed of as Agent Brown may elect.
The opinion is by Judge Perry, and
the opinion is concurred in by Justice
Whiting. Chief Justice Judd signs
dissenting view, adhering to the opin-
ion put forward at the hearing decid-
ed on December 18th.
Judge Perry's opinion is very long
and embraces a vast deal of matter.
The following is declared in it:
"The joint resolution passed by the
Congress of the United States on July
6. 1898, relating to the annexation of
the Hawaiian Islands, provided, inter
ALA, that there shall be no further
immigration of Chinese into the Ha-
waiian Islands, except upon such con-
ditions as are now or may hereafter
be allowed by the laws of the United
States.
Held, that by virtue of this provi-
sion the United States laws relating
to the immigration and exclusion of
Chinese were extended to and put in
force in the Hawaiian Islands, and are
now in force in this country; and, fur
ther, that Chinese, whether residing
in this country or not prior to July
Z, 1898, to whom permits to enter the
Hawaiian Islands were issued prior to
said date by the Hawaiian govern
ment, are not excepted by the resolu-
ton from the operation of said United
States laws, but are also subject to
the provisions thereof.
"This court is not court of the
United States and has no jurisdiction,
in habeas corpus proceedings or other
wise, to pass upon the validity of the
appointment of federal officer, or the
extent of his powers under federal
laws, or the legality of the detention
| by him under such laws of persons
who claim to be illegally in such GUS
| tody."
The opinion opens with the papers
in the case, and the particulars of the
view follow. Summing up the judge
says:
This statement of the law is clear
| and to the point. If in this case there
is any defect in the power of the Unit
! ed States officer, or in his mode of pro-
ceeding, it is for the tribunals of the
| United States to revise and correct it,
and not for this court. That no Unit
ed States court has been established
| L,,t
may result from this courts holding
that it has no jurisdiction cannot of
| itself confer jurisdiction upon the
court The Hawaiian government had
not and has not the power to confer
upon this court jurisdiction to con-
strue or iudicially enforce United
States laws, and the United States gov
ernment, though possessing the power
| to confer such jurisdiction has not
yet done so. For such failure and the
| Inconvenience resulting therefrom
| Congress alone is responsible.
In foot note in the body of the
decision is this observation:
1T is true, ] think, that the depor-
taton of these Chinese, if any, un-
| lawfully in the Hawaiian Islands, can
not for the present be enforced because
| lUt SlulultS IJIONlNt Nldl NVI ldlu IIlO-
ceedings be had before United States
| Judge i'm order to establish the unlaw-
| fulness of their presence, and no such
tribunal as yet exists here. But it
does not follow that because this is
so Congress did not intend that the
provisions of United States laws re-
lating to the exclusion of those not
yet in the country should take imme-
diate effect. 1t may well have been
the fact, and | think it was, that Con-
gress, while willing to allow those in
the country unlawfully to remain un-
| til further order, was anxious to put
an end at once to any further influx"
1t is claimed that, under the eXclu-
! sion laws, Chinese, with or without
due permits of the Hawaiian govern
ment, may be refused landing on
American soil if not otherwise regu-
larly qualified in other words that
nothing can precede the straight quail
ifications prescribed. And that Chi
naman, if found anywhere in the Unit
ed States, in old territory or new ter
ritory, has not the qualifications pre-
scribed by law, he may be forthwith
arrested and deported out of the
bounds of the United States. The
question of how he reached the place
in which he may be found, or the
rights, other than under the eXclu-
sion laws. he may have to remain, do
not enter into the case at all as an ell
ement of defense.