The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-07-30
RULES ARE DEFICIENT.

RULES ARE DEFICIENT
The rules referred to above, however
reasonable they may be in regard to
other classes OF applicants for admis-
sion, are singularly inappropriate for
the investigation of applica tons for ad-
mission on the ground that the appli-
cant was formerly engaged in this
country as a merchant in which class
or cases, as stated above, the statute
requires the applicant to establish the
necessary facts by two non-Chinese
witnesses, which implies, in all fair
ness, that the applicant shall have a.
reasonable opportunity 20 produce such
witnesses. The failure of the Immigra-
ton officer in this case to allow suffi-
Gent time for the applicant for admis-
SION TO produce the proof required by
the statute would have 'occasioned
injustice TO him if his evidence had
been sufficient. The provision of Rule
10 for an allowance for further time
does not make it a matter of discretion
with the Inspection officer, whether
such further time shall or shall not be
allowed. In negative way it requires
such delay if in the judgment of the
officer a refusal would result in injus-
tice to the applicant. The statute, by
implication, requires an opportunity to
be given the applicant to produce the
proofs which it makes necessary to his
admission. That injustice must result
to a bona fide applicant for admission
on the ground of former occupation as
| a merchant in this country, who has
| made long voyage with such an OBJ
ject in view. and who is ready to offer
-l14f i.cia, tut
| bitrarily refused an opportunity to do
| SO, cannot admit of doubt, and such
must be the judgment of any intelif-
gent and unbiased person.
DECISION ON FACTS.
The other grounds of the demurrer
| a~e upon the insuff1c iency of the facts
| alleged.
| Copies of afidavits of two non-Chi-
Iese witnesses are made a part of the
! petition. These afffdavits make the
case as prepared for the consideration
| of the immigration officer, and which it
is alleged he refused to receive and
| consider. The allegations of these Aft
davits are insufficient in the judgment
| OF this court to prove that the said
Chop Tin was a merchant within the
meaning of the said Act of Novembe
\ ora, 1880 III tHdI 1t Is IlOI SHOWN lndI
| the business of the firm of Lung Tai
| Jan of which he claims to be a part
ner, was conducted in his name, which
| words, under the leading authorities,
require that the interest of the mer-
chant must be real and appear in the
business and partnership articles in his
own name" Lee Kan VS.. United
States, 81 Fed. Rep. ga 91S. The law
requires this fact, among others, to be
| esta blished by two non-Chinese wit
| nesses and that Gin default of such
| proof (the applicanD shall be refused
| landing" Act of November 3rd, 1898,
| Sec. 2. If the Immigrat ton Inspector
had received and entertained the affi-
| davits in question. he must have refus-
Ell admission to the applicant, for the
| reasons stated above i. e., the absence
of any evidence tending to show that
| his interest in the firm of Lung Tai Jan
was real and appeared in the business
| and partnership articles in his own
name
This being the case it does not ap-
| pear that the said Chop Tin has any
thing to complain of as to his deten-
| ton.
The demurrer is allowed on this
ground.
(signed) SANFORD B. DOLE,
Judge U. S. District Court.
Honolulu, July 29th, 1904.