The Hawaiian gazette., 1900-09-07
OPIUM IN A
NUTSHELL
Questionsof An Original
Container.
LAW OF SEARCH WARRANTS
anlResting Legal Points EIucidated
by Judge Humphreys in
All Chong Case.
tFrom Thursdays DailyJ


eppium or for any other importation
anon which duties must be PAD? the
question came up In the Circuit Court
before Judge Humphreys yesterday
during the progress of the prosecution
of All Chong, charged with selling
opium 1t was jury trial upon which
<he following Jurors sat:
Chas n. Rose. Eugene p. Sullivan, II.
S. Cunha, Nm. NJ. Graham, George Il.
smithies. II. A. Dexter i. II. Arm
strong. T. w. Mckinney, l.. Oscar
White. John IL. Schnack. Jacob Lando,
and Geo. S. Wells. Assistant Attorney
General Robbins for prosecution: Rob
,,ertson {: Wilder and j. I. De Bolt for
defendant.
The evidence of Deputy Sheriff Chill
lingSorth for the prosecution was to
sthe effect that he had made a raid upon
sthe house of All Chong on Liliha street
several months since. but without the
formaity of a search warrant. He had
brought away from the house several
articles to be used as evidence against
sthe defendant, including the opium
preparation, pipes and other parapher-
8aaha Incidental to an opium smokers
s,Dutfit.
.Offcer Hanrahan who was to have
been placed on the stand to show that
The had seen the defendant in the house
sat the time of the raid, was denied the
leprivilege. Judge Humphreys in ruling
,.sipon the evidence called attention to
United States statutes, 116, page 629.
Under the authority cited Judge Hum
phreye stated in effect that articles OBJ
stained in room, such as was intended
ito be produced by the prosecution, were
not admissible as they were not taken
aander the authority granted by
search warrant.
We have law which provides how
search warrants may be issued to po-
slice officers" said Judge Humphreys,
land they are the last officers or the
Aast persons who should 60 around
breaking into peoples houses without
search warrants. Nobodys rights of
liberty are safe If that may be done"
H,vrhe authority upon which the Judge
cased his ruling Is found in the sylla-
bus, as follows:
Search and seizure of mans private
ssapers to be used In evidence for the
purpose of convicting him of a crime,
recovering penalty, or of forfeiting
his property, is totally different from
the search and seizure of stolen goods,
-dptiable articles on which the duties
have not been paid and the like, which
IightfElly belong TO the custody of the
3aw.
The seizure or compulsory production
Of mans private papers TO be used in
evidence against himself is equivalent
to compelling him to be witness
against himself, and in the pros
ecution of a crime, penalty of for
fixture, Is equally within the prohibl-
Sion of the 9th amendment.
The question of the right to sell i'm
ported opium if in the original pack
ages was brought out at the close of
the trial before the arguments We're
presented The opium which caused
the trouble OF All Chong was n small
quantity which had been placed in the
empty shell of a lchee nut Judge
Humphreys stated that under certain
circumstances the lichee nut might be
called an original contaner as he knew
OF instances where opium had been
brought into Hawaii in shoes. in vege-
tables in Kerosene oil cans, etc, AT
torney General Dole In reply thought
St inconcevabe that a llchee nutshell
Wss the original container for opium,
and 1t was beyond the bounds OF COM
Tslon sense that a single llchee nutshell
was the original contalner The sale OF
liquor as the sale of opium was within
police power If not contained in the
original package. There was the same
right to prohibit the sale of liquor and
the sale of opium or anything else of
like character which a State would
have unless Congress, which IS omnlpo-
tent. forblds It. Judge Humphreys in
terrupted by stating that State can
not prohibit the sale of an article which
Congress has allowed.
hr. Dole continued with the remark
that in certain states the sale of intoN-
fcottng liquors is absolutely prohibit
ed except in the original packages. He
considered the case one IN which the
burden rested upon the defendant TO
grove that the opium involved in the
present case was contained IN the orig
mai package of importation.
LILIuoRALANI ANSWERS VII
SON,
Illuokalanl Domlnls has filed a de-
murrer 10 the bin OF Injunction
brought against her by Charles y, VIII
aon Ia which the latter seeks 10 pre-
vent the plaintiff from ejeetlng him
from certain premises on Young aud
AHhs hht'Ahs Hht htlh ihlA 'i4N ~
aaio nlainlim has not la and By hls
sale nll. made or stated such cause
aA does or ought 10 entltle him 10 any
aueh relief As Is thereby sought and
prayed for from on agninst this defan-
dhni Thaf neither the commissioner
decd h2f tn declaration ~ trust in said
Dill nor any copy nr copies thereof, are
attached % % made part Of said bl +
That neiihsf the premises 81 aHrear
fnenth alleged 10 said bill ana IT lnh
The IialntlH ly said lill seeks a. "
tha Aennni, nor any mfWaIandu4. ~
mite thereof WAS ever reduced ta So 81
ING ~ signed bY defendant ~ eHy pHrs
a0R authorised ihmenni0 within lie
aneaHiHH II The slatnie 20 lhe pnReus
sion ~ frauds Aai psflnHea
thai nAld nill ~ uncertain. ineant