The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-01-08
SHE CANNOT
ENTER HERE
YIN Chun Shat Barred
By the Law.
JUDGE ESTES DECISION
Chinese Woman Who was Claimed as
a Wife by,Yim Quock Leong
Must Return.

| YIN Chun Shat, a pretty Chinese wo-
man who wants to be admitted to Ha-
waii and who is claimed by Vim ,QuociS
Leong, manager of Chinese. store here,
as his wife, must either go back to
appealing to the Secretary of the Unit
| ed States Treasury.
United States Judge Estee yesterday
declared he had no right to admit her
and in well-written decision sums up
the law and facts of the case as fol-
lows:
YIN Quock Leong, Chinese person.
petitions for writ of habeas corpus
on behalf of Vim Chun Shat on the
ground that she is his wife, and that
he is merchant and doing business
in Honolulu; that she is unlaWfuily
restrained of her liberty; that she is
a Chinese alien und until recently re-
sided at Canton, China. That she
came to this Territory on the Am
erica Maru, arriving at Honolulu on
the 18th of December, 1900.
The parties claim to have been mar
ried in China thirteen years ago. 1t
is admitted that since the alleged mar
riage, YIN Quock Leong married a ma
tive Hawaiian woman in this Territory
who died about year ago.
The collector of customs at the port
of Honolulu refused to let YIN Chun
Shat land on the ground that she did
not belong to the class of Chinese per-
sons entitled to admission.
1t is not necessary to consider the
facts further than to observe that the
petition shows that Vim Chun Shat
had a hearing before the collector of
customs, who upon such hearing re-
fused to allow her to land. This de-
cision is final unless appealed from to
the Secretary of the Treasury. The
order of the collector refusing to allow
a Chinese person to land is not re-
viewable by this court in this class OF
cases.
1t is prescribed by the statutes or
the United States amendment of Au-
gust 10, 1894, vol. %, U. s. States, 5000
that:
I'm every case where an alien is ex-
cluded from admission to the United
States under any law or treaty now
existing or hereafter made, the decis-
ion of the appropriate immigration or
customs officer, if adverse to the adj
mission of such alien, shall be final,
unless reversed on appeal to the Sec
rotary of the Treasury"
1t is admitted that Vim Chun Shat
been excluded from landing by a Gus
toms officer who has rendered his de-
cision adverse to her landing. The law
seems to be clear that her only rene
dy if dissatisfied with his ruling, is an
appeal to the Secretary of the Treas
ury.
See the case of Ching Ahoo. on ha-
beas corpus, decided by this court on
October 2s, 1900, where it was held
that this court had no jurisdiction to
review the action of the collector, and
that the petitioners remedy was an
appeal to the Secretary of the Treas
ury.
See, also, Lem Moon Sing, 1853 u S.,
540-45; in re Wal Tai, So Fed. Rep,
484; Leong Youk Tong, 80 Fed. Rep.
64S
So, in the very recent case of the
United States VS.. Cling Flung, 100 Fed.
Rep, 3S9. In that case the collector
made an order refusing TO land the
petitioner; an application Tor a writ
of habeas corpus was made to the Dis
trict Court, which entertained the writ
and discharged the petitioner. The
proceedings of the collector were
shown upon the facts adduced to have
been irregular, yet the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals say in re-
versing the decision of the District
Court:
NOTWITHSTANDING these irregularities,
of the collector at the hearing, THE
jurisdiction to determine the right of
the petitioner to land still remained
with the collector and the Secretary of
the Treasury, citing the cases of Nish-
imura Ekiu VS.. United States, 152 U.
s., 651; Lem moon Sing, 15S U. s., 53S,
hereinabove referred to.
See, also, in re Lee Ping, 104 Fed.
Rep, 678.
1t is however claimed by counsel
for petitioner that as the Republic of
Hawaii was an independent sovereign
ty when the act of Congress herein
referred to was passed, and that as
the whole of the question of the juris-
diction of the United States over this
and other Territories will soon be set
tied by decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States, bearing
upon the point, especially as TO the
effect of the Constitution and laws or
the United States over the recently
acquired Territory, including the Ter
ritory of Hawaii, that this court should
dispose of this case upon the facts
presented, and not pass upon it's juris-
diction at this time. But the court is
clear that whatever may be the rule
IN other matters, the Chinese Exclu-
sion laws of the United States are IN
force in the Territory of Hawaii, and
that being so, this court has no juris-
diction of this proceeding; and there
fore orders that the writ be dismissed
and the petitioner remanded into Gus
tody.
ESTEE, Judge.
January Z. 1901.