The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1911-08-08
COURT DECISION
IN TsUJI CASE
JUDGE chEMoNn SAYS Law nsuHE
M FOLLOWED Az ~
~ DRAWN.
Irmm salltda, \ AlvellI.af.l

NHN|H. HfHHH f"t. "
Judge Clcmons 80 The federal eooft
has hlcd his written deeisloa "a ne
TsuH hnbehs corpus case soppicmcnting
his oral opinion, dcliscred few days
ago. in which he discharged iho Pctl-
TONER subject to an appeal aud axed
bonds in the sum Of $500.
TsuH came to Hawaii In 1906, aud
returned to Japan In 1910, whern he
remained until June Of this year.
While he was here he served sen
teucc Of three months FOR harburing an
alien woman for immoral purposes, and
upon his arrival back in Honolulu from
Japan lie was denied admission by Inn
migration Inspector Brown, on the
ground that he was an immigrant who
had been convicted Of n crime involving
moral turpitude.
Attorney Lightfoot petitioned for n
writ of habeas corpus alleging that the
Indictment and proceedings in tho case
of Imprisonment referred TO were null
and void as founded ON an uncOnstitu-
tional statute; aud that the petitioner,
Tsuii, is a non-immigrant alien and not
subject TO the immigration laws
The main point at issue was that OF
the applicability of the immigrant laws
to Tsuji, for he had maintained his
domieile in Honolulu while he was
away in Japan. In his decision Judge
Clemens says.
Points of Decision.
''rhe contention in the respondent s
behalf is that the immigration laws now
in force and those superseded by the
Act of 1907, do not purport TO amend
previous laws, but to remodel and re-
construct the entire Immigration sys-
tenn; that congress had in view not only
undesirable immigrants but also
all aliens of the undesirable classes
I specified in section 2 of the act, whether
/ coming for the first time, or returning
after the abandonment of their domi-
ellie here, or returning after a temporary
absence that this cOntempora-
neous history shows congress to have
intended to prevent the coming in Of
all aliens of the petitioner class.
"Beyond question, the petitioner
would, if newcomer, be prescribed by
section = of the act as amended. Does
this question apply to newcomersq Or,
does it apply to all aliens whether com
! ing here for the first time or returning
/ from a temporary absence3
"As to the respondents reliance
upon the adoption, in the Act OF 1903
and subsequent acts, of the broader
term alien instead of the narrower
term immigrant used in earlier acts,
the question has been settled adversely
to his contention.
Law Should Be Plain.
"And, at all events, in spite of some
| rulings to the contrary, we believe the
| decisions in the Nnkamura case and the
reasoning of Circuit Judge Wallace, dis
senting, in the Taylor Case, to be sound
The contra decisions seem not to give
i due, if any, attention to the parol evil
! dence rule as applied to the fnterpro-
tation of statutes.
Further, it is no violent superstition
that the lawmakers had in mind what
i everyone is presumed to know, the law
as declared by the courts, And, in the
face of contemporaneou decisions, and
even of the contra decision in the Tay-
Tor case, wherein doubt was raised, be
"A strong dissent, ii would seem that
congress, il intending SO radical q
change, would and should, have placed
beyond any question the expression OF
its intent And legislatures should not
be encouraged in putting the people,
who are presumed to know the law, to
the necessity of looking for the intent
of statute beyond its face.
"The petitioner is discharged subject
to the taking of an appeal, in which
case he may be released upon giving a
reeognizance with surety in an amount
to be fixed by the court to answer the
judgment of the appellate court
| -