The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-08-02
(From Saturdays Advertiser)


Judge Dole rendered a Chinese Ex-
clusion Act decision yesterday, on the
petition for writ of habeas corpus for
Chop Tin. While the court takes juris-
diction, against the demurrer, on the
ground that Chop Tin did not have a
fair deal in his examination by the I'm
migration officers, 1t sustains the de-
murrer on the ground that the evidence
of facts which Chop Tin wotld have
produced in the examination he should
have been accorded does not show that
he was entitled to enter the country.
Chop Tins claim was that he was a
merchant, from an interest he possessed
in a store at Kapaia, Kauai. and hence
entitled to re-enter the Territory after
an absence therefrom. Following is
Judge Dole's decision in full. the sub
headings being the Advertisers:
In the District Court of the United
States, in and for the District and Ter
ritory of Hawaii. April Term, A. d.
1904.
In the Matter of the Petition of Zip
Chong for Writ of Habeas Corpus for
chop Tin.
c. w. Ashford, attorney for petition
e
ney, for the Government.
THE CASE STATED.
The petition in this case is by Zip
Chong who alleges that he is a cousin
of Chop Tin in whose behalf the writ is
prayed for. The petition complains that
Chop Tin, a person of Chinese BIRTH is
restrained of his liberty by the re-
spondents. F. NJ. Bechtel or j. X. Brown
or both of them; the respondents be-
ing officers of the Department of Com
merce and Labor or Inspectors of Immi-
grafton. That on or about June 1st,
1904 he arrived at Honolulu on his re-
turn from China and was thereupon
detained by the respondents and mas
since been held in Imprisonment on the
ground that he is Chinaman and not
included in any of the exceptions of the
Exclusion Laws of the United States,
and therefore not entitled to land in
Hawaii. When the case came on to ne
tried, the District Attorney demurred
to the petition, the first two allcga-
tions of his demurrer being as follows:
II. Said court has no jurisdiction
herein over either the subject-matter or
the person.
"2. Said court has no jurisdiction
herein either to receive, entertain or
adjudicate said petition or to make any
order, Judgment or decree thereon"
JURISDICTION DISCUSSED.
The question of jurisdiction in this
case depends on the facts. 'An alien
prevented from landing by
any such officer Collector of Customs
and Inspectors acting under their au-
thority) claiming authority to do so un-
der an Act of Congress. and thereby |
of his liberty, is doubtless en-
titled to a writ of habeas corpus to as
certain whether the restraint is lawful" |
Nishimura Ekiu VS.. United States. 142
e. S. 651, $50; Lem Moon Sing VS.. Unit
ed States, 15S U. S. $685. 543.
Under Section of the Chinese EX-
,lusion Act of April Goth, 1902, $50 Stat.
l.. 1st part, 1860, the Secretary of the !
Treasury was empowered to make rules
and regulations mot inconsistent with
the laws of the land" for carrying out
the provisions of such Act and other
Chinese Exclusion Acts and the Chinese
treaty, and, with the approval of the
President, to appoint such agents as he
might deem necessary for the execution
thereof This authority was transferred
to the Secretary of Commerce and La
Dor and TO such officers under the con-
troll of the Commissioner-Gene of