The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-06-13

Faxon Bishop for violation of the I'M
migration law came before Judge Es-
j tee Yesterday morning. A. S. Hart
we'll. w. o. Smith, A. Lewis and II. a.
Bigelow appeared for the plea, and C.
r. Hemenway and ]. A. Matthewman'
plaintiffs attorneys. opposing. Dis
| trict Attorney Breckons was present.
f. r. Stackable, collector Of customs
was the first witness called to support
the plea. To Mr.. Hartwen he said
there was no commissioner Of immigra-
| tion for Hawaii at the port of Homo
lulu. Cross-examined by Mr.. Matthew
man on this point, he gave as reason
that if there was a commissioner of i'm
migration here the collector of customs
would have nothing to do with immi-
grafton. If ever such a commissioner
were appointed the collector would be
notified Immediately.
Directly examined again, Mr.. Stack
able said he thought various statutes
gave authority to the collector to at
tend to immigration matters. He had
received authority from the Treasury
department to appoint a board of sn-
ouiry. but did not have the writings
with him. The court instructed him
TO fetch the documents in the after
noon.
Mr.. Stackable, objections being over
ruled. gave the names of members of
the board of inquiry be appointed in
the year 1900, saying they were APP
proved by the Treasury department on
July IS, 1900. Changes had taken place
in it's composition and, when the Ko-
reans. who are the subjects of these
suits, were admitted, the board was
composed of John w. Short, ]. K.
Brown, Raymond c. Brown, Albert c.
Ridgway and NJ. II. Drummond.
Mr.. Matthewman objected that this
was not proved to be a board of spe-
cial inquiry as required by the statute.
Judge Estee sustained that objection,
pending the production of proof, say
ing to Mr.. HartweH:
ITO make out your plea in bar you
must prove that a duly appointed
board of inquiry passed upon the iden-
teal cases before the court"
Mr.. Matthewman objected to evil
dence of the boards transactions be-
"
Stackable stated that he had to pass
upon the report of the board.
Mr. Hartwell quoted the replication
of plaintiff where he admitted the ac-
ton of a board of inquiry. and argued
that the only question on this point
was whether any exceptions to the
boards decision were filed at the time.
Judge Estee sustained the objecti
that the records were the best evidence
on the point and directed the witness
to bring them in also at 2 o'clock.
Mr.. Stackable doubted whether the
regulations of the department did not
forbid his producing of the records
and said before he brought them he de-
sired to consult the District Attorney.
The court made the order stand. sub
ject to legal cause shown why the rec
ords should not be produced.
]. X. Brown, inspector of immigra-
ton. was called only to have the usual
objection made that documentary in
stead of oral evidence was required.
Mr.. Matthewman said that it was only
a list" and not a board which had
been shown. Witness thought he could
find a letter from the Treasury Depart
ment directing him to serve on the
board of inquiry, and he was directed
TO fetch it at o'clock
Mr.. HartwelI read from a Federal de-
cision on a California case to show the
legality of board appointed as testi-
fed. The court remarked that a COM
was not necessary as an ex-
hibit Of authority.
Mr.. Matthewman also quoted law and. :
while admitting that a whole line of de-
cisiOns held that the decision of an i'm ]
migration inspector was final, contend I
ed that the respondent must show the
OF the alleged board of in
quiry.
Mr.. Hartwel answered that he had ,
only quoted decision to show the au-
thority of this witness.
If they set up plea in bar that
they acted under the statute Of March
Is. 1888" Mr.. Matrhewman returned.
they cannot shut us out from requir- !
ing them To prove it."
We'll" Jude Estee commented, the ]
court holds that way. It cannot be
supposed. though, that the Secretary OF
the Treasury came here in person and I
appointed this board"