Sec. CHAPTER B-EXCLUSION OF CHINESE 4290. Coming of Chinese laborers to United States suspended. 4291. Masters of vessels landing Chinese laborers, punishable. 4292. Exemptions from application of two foregoing sections. 4293. Chinese other than laborers; certificates of identity. 4294-4297. [Notes.] 4298. Bringing or landing Chinese laborers not entitled to enter. 4099-4302. [Notes.] 4306, 4307. [Notes.] 4308. Identification of Chinese laborers claiming right to leave and return; certificates, etc. 4309. Regulations, etc., to be prescribed by Secretary of Treasury. 4310-4312. [Notes.] 4313. Arrest and removal of Chinese unlawfully in United States. 4314. Same; diplomatic and consular officers excepted. Sec. 4315. Laws prohibiting coming of Chinese continued. 4316. Removal of Chinese not entitled to be or remain in United States. 4316a. Payment of charges for maintenance or return of Chinese persons. 4317. Arrested person to prove right to remain. 4318, 4319. [Notes.] 4320. Certificates of residence; arrest and deportation of Chinese laborers not having. 4321-4323. [Notes.] 4324. "Laborer" and "merchant" defined; proof for entrance of merchant. 4325. Decisions of immigration officers excluding from admission final. 4332-4334. [Notes.] 4337. Laws re-enacted and extended. § 4290. (Act May 6, 1882, c. 126, § 1, as amended, Act July 5, 1884, c. 220.) Coming of Chinese laborers to United States suspended. 1. Construction and operation of Chinese exclusion laws in general.-A Chinese person cannot object that the statute permitting her deportation after executive hearing was enacted after her entry into the country, since the nation has the inherent power to exclude or expel any class of aliens absolutely or on its own conditions. Chin Shee v. White (C. C. A. Wash.) 273 F. 801, affirming judgment (D. C.) Ex parte Ah Sue, 270 F. 356. 2. Immigration acts.-Immigration Act Feb. 5, 1917, prescribing conditions for the entry of aliens into the United States, is applicable to Chinese aliens entitled to enter under the Chinese Exclusion Laws. Hee Fuk Yuen v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 273 F. 10, certiorari denied Pang Hing v. White, 42 S. Ct. 51, 257 U. S. 639, 66 L. Ed. 411. 6. Admission and exclusion of Chinese "Chinese laborers/-The statutes limiting the immigration or residence of Chinese laborers excluded all Chinese persons belonging to the class defined as laborers except those specifically and definitely exempted. Yee Won v. White. 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012, affirming judgment (C. C. A. Cal.) 258 F. 792. on the immigration of Chinese laborers, one entering the United States subsequent to the treaty with China of 1894 as a resident merchant's minor son, but subsequently acquiring the status of a laborer, is not entitled to have his wife and minor children, born in China and never residing elsewhere. admitted. Yee Won v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012, affirming judgment (C. C. A. Cal.) 258 F. 792. A Chinese alien, domiciled in this country as a laborer, is not entitled to admission of his wife and minor children. Chán Gai Jan v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 266 F. 869. 12. Treaties and rights of Chinese thereunder. The legislation limiting the immigration or residence of Chinese laborers re-enacted, extended, and continued by Act April 29, 1902. as amended by Act April 27, 1904, § 5 (Comp. St. § 4337). is in force notwithstanding the expiration in 1904 of the treaty of 1894 with China, prohibiting the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States. Yee Won v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012, affirming judgment (C. C. A. Cal.) 258 F. 792. Cited without definite application, White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797; Ng Fung Ho v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 266 F. 765; T. C. Chou v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 282 F. 227. § 4291. (Act May 6, 1882, c. 126, § 2, as amended, Act July 5, 1884, c. 220.) Masters of vessels landing Chinese laborers, punishable. Cited without definite application, White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797; Yee Won v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012. § 4292. (Act May 6, 1882, c. 126, § 3, as amended, Act July 5, 1884, c. 220.) Exemptions from application of two foregoing sections. Cited without definite application, White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797; Yee Won v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012. § 4293. (Act May 6, 1882, c. 126, § 6, as amended, Act July 5, 1884, c. 220.) Chinese other than laborers; certificates of identity. See U. S. v. Ko Sai Cheung (C. C. A. Mo.) 281 F. 988. 13. Viséed certificate-Effect as evidence.-Under the treaty with China of December 8, 1894, and Act April 27, 1904 (Comp. St. § 4337), authorizing the issuing of certificates by Chinese authorities showing the mercantile status of Chinese persons desiring to enter the United States, and making such certificates prima facie evidence of the facts set forth, a Chinese person, who was admitted on the production of such a certificate, and whose deportation was thereafter sought on the ground that he had not shown his right to remain, must be advised if deportation is sought on the ground that his entry was fraudulent, for such cer. tificates are entitled to weight, and Chinese persons should be notified of any attack thereon. Lo Hop v. U. S. C. C. A. Ohio) 257 F. 489. ings that a Chinese alien fraudulently re-entered the United States on a certincate as a merchant, when his true status was that of a laborer. Ng Leong v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 260 F. 749. 17. Deportation of Chinese-Where merchant or student becomes a laborer. -Where a Chinese person has been regularly admitted as a merchant, the fact that he subsequently becomes a laborer does not in itself destroy his right to remain, for such a fact is important only as it may tend to show that in reality he entered as a laborer, or for the purpose of immediately becoming a laborer, and so procured his admission through fraud, in violation of the Exclusion Acts. Lo Hop v. U. S. (C. C. A. Ohio) 257 F. 489. Cited without definite application, White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797; Yee Won. v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012. §§ 4294-4297. (Act May 6, 1882, c. 126, §§ 7-10, and amendments.) Cited without definite application, White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797; U. S. v. Butt, 41 S. Ct. 37, 254 U. S. 38, 65 L. Ed. 119; Yee Won v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012. § 4298. (Act May 6, 1882, c. 126, § 11, as amended, Act July 5, 1884, c. 220.) Bringing or landing Chinese laborers not enti tled to enter. Indictment.-A count charging that defendant and others conspired, in violation of Penal Code, § 37 (Comp. St. § 10201), and this section, to bring Chinese persons, not lawfully entitled to enter, into the United States, and that in furtherance of the conspiracy one of the defendants delivered to another certain letters containing questions and answers to be used by the applicants, was not defective for failure to allege in detail what defendant did with records which were delivered and contained questions to be used by the applicants. Kaphan v. U. S. (C. C. A. Cal.) 264 F. 323. An indictment for conspiracy to bring into the United States Chinese persons, contrary to this act, need not al lege that the Chinamen intended to be brought in did not belong to the classes excepted from that act. Wing v. U. S. (C. C. A. Fla.) 280 F. 112. Evidence.-Evidence in a prosecution for conspiracy to bring in Chinese persons, contrary to this act, showing it was the intention of defendants to bring the Chinese to a point outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, where they were to be met by another vessel, which would attempt to land them, and that when the latter vessel failed to meet them the defendants came ashore, held to warrant the jury in finding that the defendants voluntarily came ashore notwithstanding their claim they were driven into the jurisdiction against their will by stress of weather. Wing v. U. S. (C. C. A. Fla.) 280 F. 112. Prosecution under Immigration Act. -Where, on a previous prosecution of accused under this section, for the unlawful landing of Chinese laborers in the United States, a verdict of not guilty was directed on the ground of failure to prove that the Chinese were actually landed in the United States, it was error, in a subsequent prosecution for the same acts, under Immigration Act, § 8 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 42894dd) to quash the indictment on the ground that persons bringing Chinese laborers into the United States should be prosecuted, not under the Immigration Act, but under the Chinese Exclusion Act. U. S. v. Butt, 41 S. Ct. 37, 254 U. S. 38, 65 L. Ed. 119. Cited without definite application, White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797; Yee Won v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012. §§ 4299-4302. (Act May 6, 1882, c. 126, as amended.) White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 §§ 4306, 4307. (Act Sept. 13, 1888, c. 1015, §§ 5, 6.) Cited without definite application, White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797. § 4308. (Act Sept. 13, 1888, c. 1015, § 7.) Identification of Chinese laborers claiming right to leave and return; certificates, etc. Deportation without judicial hearing. -Immigration Act Feb. 5, 1917, § 19 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 42894 jj) of which authorizes deportation of an alien who entered the United States in violation of any law of the United States, and expressly provides that it shall be applicable to such aliens, irrespective of the time of their entry, applies to Chinese who entered this country in violation of sections 6 and 7 of this act (Comp. St. §§ 4308, 4320), though they entered before 1917, so that such persons can be deported after executive hearing under the Immigration Act, and are not entitled to the judicial hearing given by the Chinese Exclusion Law. Sit Sing Kum v. U. S. (C. C. A. N. Y.) 277 F. 191. Cited without definite application, White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797; Woo Shing v. U. S. (C. C. A. Ohio) 282 F. 498. § 4309. (Act Sept. 13, 1888, c. 1015, § 8.) Regulations, etc., to be prescribed by Secretary of Treasury. Temporary admission under bond.— A Chinese person who was temporarily admitted under bond and who thereafter engaged in mercantile business did not thereby acquire the right to have a judicial settlement of his right to remain which is accorded to resident Chinese persons, but not to those seeking admission who are subject only to executive orders. Ex parte Wu Kao (D. C. Wash.) 270 F. 351. Where a Chinese person was temporarily admitted on bond pending determination of his right to enter, his liability to deportation thereafter is to be determined by his status at the time of admission. Id. Cited without definite application, White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797. §§ 4310-4312. (Act Sept. 13, 1888, c. 1015, §§ 9-11.) Cited without definite application, White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797. § 4313. (Act Sept. 13, 1888, c. 1015, § 13.) Arrest and removal of Chinese unlawfully in United States. See Ex parte Wu Kao (D. C. Wash.) 270 F. 351. II. DEPORTATION OF CHINESE 15. Deportation proceedings-HearIng.-Immigration Act, § 19 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 42894jj), does not authorize deportation of a Chinese citizen for violation of the Chinese Exclu sion Act without a judicial hearing in accordance with the requirements of that act, as provided in this section. U. S. v. Ko Sai Cheung (C. C. A. Mo.) 281 F. 988. 21. Deportation under immigration act.-See notes under §§ 42891⁄4ii 42894jj. In view of the provision of Immigration Act Feb. 5, 1917, § 38 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 42894u), saving from repeal the laws relating to Chinese, except as provided in section 19 (section 42894jj), which latter section provides for deportation of an alien engaging in prostitution after entry in the United States, which differs in that respect from the similar proviso in Immigration Act Feb. 20, 1907, § 43 (Comp. St. Ann. 1916, § 4289), a Chinese woman is not entitled to the judicial hearing granted by this section, before her deportation for prostitution after her entry, but may be deported after the executive hearing granted by the immigration laws. Chin Shee v. White (C. C. A. Wash.) 273 F. 801, affirming judgment (D. C.) Ex parte Ah Sue, 270 F. 356. Cited without definite application, White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797; Chin Fong v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 258 F. 849. § 4314. (Act Sept. 13, 1888, c. 1015, § 14.) Same; diplomatic and consular officers excepted. Cited without definite application, U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797; Chin Fong White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 258 F. 849. § 4315. (Act May 5, 1892, c. 60, § 1.) Laws prohibiting coming of Chinese continued. Cited without definite application, U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012. § 4316. (Act May 5, 1892, c. 60, § 2.) Removal of Chinese not en titled to be or remain in United States. Cited without definite application, U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012; Wong Sur Yee Won v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 v. Fluckey (D. C. Ohio) 283 F. 989. § 4316a. (Act Aug. 24, 1912, c. 355, § 1.) Payment of charges for maintenance or return of Chinese persons. All charges for maintenance or return of Chinese persons applying for admission to the United States shall hereafter be paid or reimbursed to the United States by the person, company, partnership, or corporation bringing such Chinese to a port of the United States as applicants for admission. (37 Stat. 476.) This section is a provision of the sundry civil appropriation act for the year 1913, cited above. § 4317. (Act May 5, 1892, c. 60, § 3.) Arrested person to prove right to remain. II. EVIDENCE IN PROCEEDINGS FOR REMOVAL OF CHINESE 7. Degree of proof.-On an issue as to the United States citizenship of a person of the Chinese race, he is not required to establish his citizenship beyond a "substantial doubt," but only by a fair preponderance of the evidence. In re Wong Toy (D. C. Mass.) 278 F. 562. 8. Sufficiency.-Evidence held to sustain findings by the immigration inspector and the District Court that defendant was a Chinese alien laborer, and that he had failed to sustain the burden imposed on him by Act Feb. 5, 1917, § 19 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. ' 1919, § 42894jj), of proving his right to remain in this country. Jung Kwok Hin v. Burnett (C. C. A. Ariz.) 255 F. 685. Evidence held to sustain decision of immigration officials that Chinese applicants for admission to the United States were not foreign-born sons of a citizen. Chang Sim v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 277 F. 765. Evidence on which a Chinese person was admitted into the United States as a native-born citizen, which consisted of affidavits by himself and by others conflicting with each other in important details, held not to show satisfactorily the right of such Chinese person to remain in the United States. Doo Fook v. U. S. (C. C. A. Ariz.) 272 F. 860, petition for certiorari dismissed 42 S. Ct. 53, 257 U. S. 652, 66 L. Ed. 417, and certiorari denied on rehearing 42 S. Ct. 95, 257 U. S. 654, 66 L. Ed. 419. Where a Chinese applicant's father had been admitted as a native-born citizen, and applicant's two brothers were subsequently admitted as sons of a native-born citizen, held, that a declaration, claimed to have been made by applicant's father in Canada, giving China as the father's birthplace and an instrument by applicant's grandfather, stating that he arrived in the United States subsequent to the date applicant's father had claimed to have been born in this country, were insuf ficient to authorize the department in overturning its previous decisions and excluding the applicant. Ex parte Chan Wy Sheung (D. C. Cal.) 262 F. 221. 9. Probative effect.-Where the testimony of two Chinese persons, ordered to be deported, that they were born in this country, was not corroborated, and their testimony in other respects was contradicted by other witnesses, their testimony as to the place of their birth need not be believed. Sit Sing Kum v, U. S. (C. C. A. N. Y.) 277 F. 191. 10. Burden of proof.-One admitting that he was of Chinese descent has the burden of establishing a lawful right to remain in the United States. Lo Hop v. U. S. (C. C. A. Ohio) 257 F. 489; Sit Sing Kum v. U. S. (C. C. A. N. Y.) 277 F. 191. Where Chinese were admitted as citizens on evidence that their father was a native of the United States, the burden of attack rests on the government; but, where the evidence is sufficient to show that the original certificates granted them were obtained by fraud, deportation may follow. Ng Fung Ho v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 266 F. 765, certiorari granted 41 S. Ct. 148, 254 U. S. 628, 65 L. Ed. 446. The burden of proof rests on a person of the Chinese race, seeking admission to the United States on the ground that he is a son of an American-born citizen, White v. Chan Wy Sheung (C. C. A. Cal.) 270 F. 764, reversing judgment (D. C.) Ex parte Chan Wy Sheung, 262 F. 221. Though the burden is on the government to attack the right of a Chinese person, who had been readmitted as a native-born citizen, to remain in the country, such burden may be sustained by the production of the evidence before the officials who admitted him, and the burden of establishing his right to remain by affirmative proof, imposed by this section, is not affected by his admission. Doo Fook v. U. S. (C. C. A. Ariz.) 272 F. 860, petition for certiorari dismissed 42 S. Ct. 53, 257 U. S. 652, 66 L. Ed. 417, and certiorari denied on rehearing 42 S. Ct. 95, 257 U. S. 654, 66 L. Ed. 419. Cited without definite application, Yee Won v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012; Ng Fung Ho v. White, 42 S. Ct. 492, 259 U. S. 276, 66 L. Ed. 938. §§ 4318, 4319. (Act May 5, 1892, c. 60, §§ 4, 5.) Cited without definite application, Yee Won v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012. § 4320. (Act May 5, 1892, c. 60, § 6, as amended, Act Nov. 3, 1893, c. 14, § 1.) Certificates of residence; arrest and deportation of Chinese laborers not having. Res. Nov. 23, 1921, c. 148, 42 Stat. 325, authorizes and directs the Commissioner General of Immigration to register, and issue a certificate of registration, to 365 Chinamen, temporarily domiciled in the United States, who attached themselves to the punitive military expedition into Mexico in 1916, and who were brought into the United States as refugees upon the return of the expedition; such registration to correspond as nearly as may be to the registration prescribed by Act May 5, 1892, c. 60, § 6, 27 Stat. 25, as amended by Act Nov. 3, 1893, c. 14, § 1, 28 Stat. 7; such certificates to constitute evidence of the right of the Chinamen to remain in the United States. Said resolution further provides that these Chinamen shall, before being registered, be given the examination prescribed by Act Feb. 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 874, with the exception of the reading test, and that such of them as may be found inadmissible under said act shall be deported; and that if any of them shall, after being registered, become members of any of the classes for the expulsion of which provision is made in § 19 of said act they shall be deported. Said resolution further provides that the certificate of registration shall be issued without charge, and provides for punishment by fine or imprisonment for the taking of any fee, etc., in connection with the registration, the procurement of the certificate, or the passage of the resolution. I. VALIDITY, Notes of Decisions CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION IN GENERAL 12. Application of general immigration laws. Under this act (Comp. St. §§ 4320, 4324), requiring a Chinaman, applying for admission on the ground that he was formerly engaged in the United States as a merchant, to establish the fact that he was such for 2 SUPP. U.S.COMP. '23-84 at least one year before his departure, one who had been a merchant for at least one year before his departure for China with the intention of returning could not be excluded on his return by the immigration officials on the ground that his original entry was fraudulent, but could be deported only by a judicial proceeding. White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253 U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. (1329) |