The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1910-05-27
LAW HARD ON
INNOCENT MAN
Judge Renders Decision That Is
Contrary to His Own View
of Facts.

|
morning, the petition of Ching Kim
Hee for the setting aside of the order
FORGETTING the $1,000 bail bond of the
Chinese ought in justice to be granted,
United States District Judge Robertson
yesterday morning denied the motion.
This means that it costs Ching Kim
Hee $1,000 because the steamer on
which he was travelling failed to arrive
at Honolulu on the date she should.
have arrived.
The Judge denied the motion, not
withstanding its apparent justice, for
the reason that there is no law which
would permit of its being granted. The
incident serves to illustrate the made.
quacy of the law and the fact that law
and justice are not always synonymous,
Ching Kim Hee was arrested on
warrant sworn to by United States Dis.
trict Attorney Breckons August 4, 1909,
charging him with being Chinese
laborer within the limits of the Ter.
ritory without certificate of residence
Upon a hearing had before United
States commissioner Ching kim Hee,
without prejudice, pleaded guilty and
was sentenced to deportation. The
man, however, pleaded guilty because
, of the fact that the American Hawai-.
ian steamship Texan, on which he was
employed as steward, was to sail for
New York that same evening and he
did not have time to stay and fight
the case. 1t was understood that, in
pleading guilty so he could get away
with the steamer he did not prejudice
his right to appeal to the United States
} district court.
The defendant took his appeal and
gave cognizance for appearance in the
sum of $1,000, with two sureties, it be,
ing conditioned that he should appear
before the court February /, 1910. He
was released from custody, and on Feb
ruary Is, when he was called and did
not put in an appearance, his bond was
declared forfeited. His two sureties
had required him to put $1,000 in the
bank to cover the amount of the bond,
and when the bond was declared for.
feited, they drew down his $1,000 to
reimburse themselves.
And yet it appears that Ching Kim
Hee was not to blame for his failure
to appear before the Court. 1t was
J simply the failure of his ship to arrive
when it was expected she would arrive
t that cost him his thousand dollars.
On April 90 the defendant, by his
= attorney, A. s. Humphreys, filed mo
| a. - he ay1a nc ait
} and it is this motion which the court
now denies. The motion was supported
by an affidavit, in which the defendant
} states that he has for twenty years
been seafaring man employed on
} American vessels-this notwithstanding
the fact that it is now sought to deport
} him as a Chinese laborer illegally in
the country. For six years he has been
} a steward on the steamship Texan; he
is a married man, his wife living in
! Honolulu and being supported entirely
by his wages. He sets forth that in
the proceedings before the commission
err he was represented by A. s. Hum
: phreys. At the time of his arrest the
Texan was about to sail for New York
and the master of the vessel earnestly
: requested him to go as steward, assur
: ing the defendant that he would he able
to return to Honolulu by the first day
of February, 1910. Breckons knew that
the Chinese was going on the Texan
= having been informed of that fact be
} fore the vessel sailed, and he made nc
j objection. Yet it is his failure to con
i sent to postponement of the trial that
puts Ching Kim Hee in the hole.
, From New York Ching Kim HeC
sailed for SAP Diego en- route to Ho
} nolulu on the Isthmiar. That vesse
a touched at Baltimore, and at the re
quest of the defendant the captain
D wrote to Humphreys to ascertain if the
deportation proceedings could not bC
D postponed until his arrival in Honolulu
the laying up of the Texan in drydocl
D having made it impossible for him t.
get here by February ]. When the
D Isthmian arrived at San Diego the de
PENDANT requested the captain to com
D municate with Humphreys to ascertain
whether or not the defendant would
ii be required to be- present in Honolulu
on February /, and Humphreys replied
D that the case could easily be postponed
until the defendant Is arrival in Homo
D lulu. The letters are attached to thu
affidavit.
The defendant was intending to re
Of turn by the Virginian, sailing from Sai
VI Francisco about February 81, but whei
D he was informed that the case coult
d be postponed, he continued on as stew
D ard of the Isthmian until her arriva
L at San Francisco February IA, whel
he was transferred to the Virginian
d On February II, while he was TEN
porarily ashore in San Francisco, h,
D was arrested by the United States
marshal in pursuance of cable from
VI Breckons, and was kept in jail unit
February 10, when he was released OF
D $1,000 bail bond, conditioned for hi
appearance before the judge of tn,
y federal court in Honolulu, April 10.
Ching kim Hee arrived in Honolulu
April IL and Immediately delivered
y himself up to the United States mar
shall.
The defendant averred that in orde
i, to furnish the original $1,000 bond hi
" had to put up $1,000 in cash to insure