The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-06-16

as valid in all collateral proceedings
| though the official term of the person
acting as judge had not yet begun OF
! had terminated, or the statute au-
/ thoriZing him to act or providing the
! mode of his appointment is unconstitu-
! uonal, or he is acting under an APP
pointment by officers having no power
! to make such appointment. or as the
/ officer of a sovereign whose authority
/ over the territory had ceased !
! Freeman on Judgments, Sec 14S But,
without waving the claim, the defen-
dant submits that the evidence shows
| legally constituted Board of Special
| Inquiry to consider and decide upon
the aliens right to land, under the
provisions of the Act of March 8. 1908,
and of Rules of the Commissioner
General of immigration made by au-
thority of that Act.
Section 25 Act of March 8, 1903,
which requires that 'such Boards of
Special Inquiry shall be appointed by
the Commissioners of Immigration at
the various ports of arrival as may be
necessary for the prompt determine
ton of all cases of aliens" not being
applicable to Honolulu, where there
was no Commissioner of Immigration,
Section % of the same Act is appli-
cable, which gives the Commissioner
General of immigration charge of the
determination of all laws relating to
the immigration of aliens into the
United States" and requires that she
shall establish such rules and regu-
lations and shall issue from time to
time such instructions not inconsistent
with law for carrying out the provi-
sions of this Act as he shall deem
best" ETC.
The Act of June 6, 1900 authorized
the designation, which was made by
the Commissioner-Genera of Immigra-
ton, of five United States officers by
name as qualified to serve on Boards
of Special Inquiry. BY Rule of I'M
migration Regulations. dated March 3.
1903, Mr. Stackable. as Collector of
Customs, was authorized to select
members of the Board from the per-
sons designated as qualified to serve
on Boards of Inquiry. 1t is true he
selected all five instead of three, but
as the five were unanimous in their
decision, the decision was not invalid
ated by the fact that the Board con-
tanned more than three.
SUPERIOR APPROVAL IMPLIED.
The Commissioner-Gener made no
change on the subject of Boards of In
quiry when he was here shortly after
the decision of the Special Board of
Inquiry in this case. On the contra
ry he approved of the constitution of
that Board and ratified it, as well as
its decision in this matter. Nothing
could show more plainly the intention
that until otherwise directed the mem |
bers designated by him under the earl |
Ter Act should continue to be quail |
fled for Boards of Inquiry until further !
direction.
A PENAL ACTION
In Lees VS.. U. s., $50 U. S. 476, 81 L. |
E. 1850, an action to recover a penalty |
for violation of alien contract labor /
law, the Court say: This though an |
action civil in form is unquestionably !
in its nature
Huntington VS.. Attrill. LAG u. S. 657.
36 L. E. 1925. dicusses the nature of a
penal law very fully, and also of qui
tam actions. 1.-The test whether a law
is penal in the strict and primary
sense is whether the wrong sought to
be redressed is a wrong to the public
Or a wrong to the individual" Id.
1928
To- -