The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-12-13
SEGREGATION
is ATTACKED.
Tongue Given
Free PIay...Andrews
Makes Reply.

Attorney-General l.. Andrews came In
two speeches in the Federal Court yes
terday endeavoring to show that the
leper segregation laws of the Hawaiian
Islands for the past forty years, con-
tinuing under the Territory of Hawaii,
are contrary to the bill of rights of the
Constitution of the United States.
c. w. Ashford occupied two hours in
between the two efforts OF Mr.. Ashford
with an address of half an hour.
Judge Dole asked counsel to file their
authorities and continued the case
that of a writ of habeas corpus for Mrs.
Kaipu-.until 10 o'clock Monday morn
ing
When the case was called Mr.. Ashford
read demurrer to the return pre-
sented by the Attorney General on be-
half of President l.. L. Pinkham of the
Board of Health.
Miss Kaipu, petitioner for the writ
on behalf of her mother. was in court
Witnesses for the respondent who at
tended but We're not called were Drs.
Mcdonald, Cooper, Mays and Sinclair.
The gist of the demurrer was that
| the return was made up of conclusions
of law rather than statements of fact.
Mr.. Ashford, in speaking to his demur-
rer, quoted the famous jurist, Marshall,
| as warning the constitution makers
against "a government of discretion"
Cooley was cited on principles of lib
erty. Mr.. Ashford's authorities related
| chiefly to commitments for insanity,
and for the rest, his argument, If de-
| tached from the cool precincts of
court of justice, might fairly be de-
sCribed as an inflammatory attack upon
the system of segregation of lepers in
vogue here since 1864. The word hell"
was used often enough to impart a dis
tinctly volcanic odor to the argument.
Mr.. Ashford made the assertion that
persons sent to the settlement We're sub
jected to involuntary servitude, modi-
fled only by the discretion of the resi-
dent physician.
Mr.. Andrews, in his address, fatty
denounced the statement regarding in
voluntary servitude as untrue. The in
mates of the settlement We're paid for
their labor and only required to per-
form work consistent with a proper
regimen of healthful exercise. Mr.. An
drews also contradicted the attorney
for the writ in statement that the
practice was to have the youngest and
most inexperienced physicians on the
examining board at the receiving sta
tion.
Mr.. Ashford admitted in his main
remarks, that he had in times past had
something to do with the Legislation
relative to segregation, but said he had
never examined the system carefully
until taking up the present case. AS
n result of this examination he declared
these laws to be full of wounds and
bruises and putrefying sores" He con-
tended that even If Mrs. Kaipu was not
in the situation represented in the Pc
tition the laws referred to We're utterly
repugnant to the Constitution. His ar
gument and authorities went to the
propositions that a medical board was
untrustworthy without opportunity OF
placing expert against expert and hav-
ing witnesses cross-examined and that
the enforcement of the policy of segre-
cation should be in the jurisdiction OF
some judicial tribunal.
Attorney General Andrews was at nc
loss for authorities relating to the pro-
lection of the public against contagious
disease of any kind. He drew picture
of the situation that would result If the
power of the constituted health au-
thorities, exercised in all civilized coun-
tries from time immemorial, to quaran-
tine cases of Contagious disease was
taken away. a man suspected OF
plague or smallpox might if the prop
osition of opposite counsel was right
demand to be taken into court for eX-
animation before he was sent to hos
/, pital.
Referring to the epithets applied tc
the settlement Mr.. Andrews stated tha'
the United States medical authorities
had criticised the administration of the
place on account of its very leniency
The people were not deprived of theil
civil rights. Wisely or unwisely tn
5 Organic Act gave them the electora
franchise.
Mr.. Andrews contended that tn
e United States would never interfer
II with the police powers of States or Tel
= ritories. He submitted 1t could neVe
II be held that the proper segregation
y persons afflicted with contagious or IN
il tectious disease was a breach OF IN
: Constitution.
.