[U, S. Sup., Ill., 1909.]

Congress had no power to enact act of February 20, 1907, ch. 1134, sec. 3, 34 Stat., 899 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp., 1907, p. 392), for the criminal punishment of the mere keeping, maintaining, supporting, or harboring for the purpose of prostitution any alien woman within three years after she shall have entered the United States. (Keller v. United States, 29 S. Ct., 470; 213 U. S., 138; 53 L. Ed. Üllman v. Same, id.)

[N. Y., 1891.]

Laws of 1882, chapter 145, providing for the raising by the commissioners of emigration of a fund for the expenses of the inspection and care of alien passengers by contract with carriers of emigrants by vessel to the city of New York is not enforceable, as the subject is solely within the jurisdiction of the United States Congress; and the commissioners are not liable to the city of New York for the care and maintenance by the city of immigrants arriving at that port, where it is not shown that there is any existing fund out of which payment therefor could be made by the commissioners.-(New York v. Commissioners of Emigration, 59 Hun., 624, 13 N. Y. Sup., 751.)

[Mass., 1842.]

1

2

It was within the legislative power to pass the act of 1837, chapter 3 238, section 3, which prohibits the landing of alien passengers who arrive in any vessel at any port or harbor in this State until the master, owner, or consignee, or agent of the vessel shall pay to the regularly appointed board $2 for each passenger, to be appropriated for the support of foreign paupers.-(Norris v. Boston, 45 Mass.; 4 Metc., 282.)

[U. S. D. C., Cal., 1897.]

The power of Congress to prescribe such rule of evidence in proceedings for the deportation of Chinese is included within its general authority to exclude aliens, or to prescribe the conditions upon which they may remain in the United States.-(United States v. Williams, 83 F., 997.)

[U. S. C. C., Ala., 1899.]

The immigration laws of the United States, like all other statutes, must be given a sensible construction, having reference to their purpose, and as so construed they apply only to such aliens as enter or are brought to this country with the intention that they shall become residents thereof.-(United States v. Burke, 99 F., 895.)

[U. S. C. C. A., Ala., 1899.]

The provisions of act of August 18, 1894, making the decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officer excluding an alien from admission to the United States under any law or treaty conclusive upon the courts does not preclude a court from entertaining jurisdiction to determine the question whether such alien was, in fact, an immigrant within the meaning of such laws.-(United States v. Burke, 99 F., 895.)

[Cal., 1862.]

4

5

6

Immigration, either temporary or permanent, is an essential in- 7 gredient of intercourse and traffic, and the power to regulate com

merce lodged by the Constitution in the General Government implies the power to regulate both as to persons and as to goods, and its exercise can not be interfered with by any State. (Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal., 534.)

[Cal., 1894.]

1 Act of March 20, 1891 (Stat. 1891, p. 185), intended to prohibit Chinese from coming into the State, and to prescribe the terms on which those residing in the State may remain or travel between different points in the State, is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, Article I, section 8, giving the General Government authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and is void.(Ex parte Ah Cue, 101 Cal., 197; 35 Pac., 556. Ex parte Lippman, 35 Pac., 557.)

2

3

4

5

6

7

Deportation proceedings under section 6 of the act of May 5, 1892, are in no proper sense a trial and sentence for a crime or offense, but are simply the ascertainment, by appropriate and lawful means, whether the conditions exist upon which Congress has declared Chinese aliens may remain within the country. The order of deportation is not a punishment or banishment for crime, but is merely a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions required to permit him to reside in this country.-(Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S., 698; Sup. Ct., May 15, 1893.)

Section 6 of the act of May 5, 1892, requiring all Chinese laborers then entitled to remain in the United States to register, and providing for the arrest, trial, and deportation of those not registering, is valid and constitutional.--(Ibid.; see also the Chinese exclusion case, 130 U. S., 581.)

Section 4 of the act of May 5, 1892, providing for the imprisonment at hard labor of all Chinese adjudged to be unlawfully in the United States, is void under Article III and amendments 5 and 6 of the Constitution. (Wong Wing v. U. S., 163 U. S., 228; Sup. Ct., May 18, 1896. United States v. Wong Dep Ken, 57 F. R., 206; Dist. Ct., July 31, 1893.)

Detention or temporary confinement, as part of the means necessary to give effect to the exclusion or expulsion of Chinese aliens, is constitutional.-(Wong Wing v. U. S., 163 U. S., 228; Sup. Ct., May

18, 1896.)

Chinese-exclusion act, May 6, 1882, was not intended as a measure to expel Chinese laborers already domiciled in the United States, but to prevent others from coming hereafter.-(In re Ah Sing, F. R., 286; Cir. Ct., Aug. 27, 1882.)

[U. S. Sup., Cal., 1902.]

The treaty between China and the United States of December 8, 1894, provided (art. 3, par. 2, 28 Stat., 1211) that

Chinese laborers shall continue to enjoy the privilege of transit across the territory of the United States. subject to such regulations by the Government of the United States as may be necessary to prevent said privilege of transit from being abused.

The privilege had previously been exercised under regulations prescribed by the Treasury Department, the last of which, prior to the

treaty, were promulgated September 28, 1889, and were in force when the treaty was ratified. Held, that effect of such provision of the treaty was to recognize the regulations then in force, and to agree to their continuance, and to such modifications as might be found necessary to prevent the privilege granted from being abused.-(C. C., 1901. In re Lee Gon Yung, 111 F., 998, affirmed 22 S. Ct., 690; 185 U. S., 306; 46 L. Ed., 921.)

The regulations of the Treasury Department of December 8, 1900, governing the privilege of transit by Chinese laborers across the territory of the United States, which requires that evidence be produced which shall satisfy the collector of customs "that a bona fide transit only was intended," were authorized by the provision of the treaty with China of March 17, 1894 (28 Stat., 1211), that Chinese laborers shall continue to enjoy such privilege of transit, subject to such regulations by the Government of the United States as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the privilege.-(Fok Young Yo v. United States, 22 S. Ct., 686; 185 U. S., 296; 46 L. Ed., 917. Lee Gon Yung v. Same, 22 S. Ct., 690; 185 U. S., 306; 46 L. Ed., 921, affirming In re Lee Gon Yung (C. C. 1901, 111 F., 998.)

[Cal., 1862.]

The laws of Congress allowing foreigners to come to this country necessarily allow them to remain here, and any state law preventing either their coming to or residing in the State is unconstitutional and void.-(Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal., 534.)

[U. S., 1849.]

A state statute laying a tax upon aliens arriving in the ports of the State is unconstitutional.-(Smith v. Turner, 48 U. S. (7 How.), 283; 12 L. Ed., 702.)

[U. S., 1875.]

A state statute which requires the master of a vessel to give a bond to indemnify the municipalities of the State against any expense for the relief or support of passengers carried on such vessel, or in lieu thereof pay a certain sun for each passenger brought to the ports of the State, is a regulation of commerce, and therefore unconstitutional. (Henderson v. Wickham, 92 U. S., 259; 23 L. Ed., 543.)

[U. S., 1875.]

The California statute regulating the arrival of passengers from a foreign port is palpably unconstitutional and void. Its purpose is to extort money from a large class of passengers, or prevent their immigration. It operates directly on the passenger; for, unless the master or owner of a vessel gives an onerous bond for the future protection of the State against the support of the passenger, or pays such sum as the commissioner of immigration chooses to exact, he is not permitted to land from the vessel. It extends far beyond the necessity in which the right, if it exists, is founded of protecting the State from the diseased, poor, and criminal classes, and invades the right of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations.-(Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S., 275; 23 L. Ed., 550.)

1

2

3

4

5

1

[U. S., 1883.]

Act of New York, May 31, 1881, levying a duty of $1 on every alien passenger coming by vessel from a foreign port to the port of New York, though intended to secure an inspection of passengers with reference to the landing of criminals, paupers, lunatics, orphans, or infirm persons, subject to become a public charge, is not an inspection law within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, Article I, section 10, clause 2, but is void as a regulation of foreign commerce. (People v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 107 U. S., 59; 2 Sup. Ct., 87; id., 10 Fed., 357.)

2 Act of Congress, August 3, 1882, " to regulate immigration," which imposes upon the owners of vessels who shall bring passengers from a foreign port into a port of the United States a duty of 50 cents for every such passenger not a citizen of this country, is valid.--(Edve v. Robertson, 112 U. S., 580; 5 Sup. Ct., 247; 28 L. Ed., 798; id., 18 Fed., 135.)

3

4

5

6

[U. S., 1892.]

2'.

It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to selfpreservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.-(Knox . Lee (1870), 79 U. S. (12 Wall.). 457; 20 L. Ed., 287. Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1888), 130 U. S., 581, 9 Sup. Ct., 623; 32 L. Ed., 1068. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1891), 142 U. S., 651; 12 Sup. Ct., 336; 35 L. Ed., 1146. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S., 698; 13 Sup. Ct., 1016; 37 L. Ed., 905. Wong Quan v. Same, id. Lee Joe v. Same, id.)

[U. S., 1874.]

A state statute which prohibits Chinese immigrants arriving by vessel from landing until a bond is given by the master that they will not become a public charge is in violation of act May 31, 1870, declaring that

no tax or charge shall be imposed or enforced by any State upon any person immigrating thereto from a foreign country which is not equally imposed or enforced upon every person immigrating to such State from any foreign country, and any law of any State in conflict with this provision is hereby declared null and void. (In re Ah Fong, Fed. cas. No. 102, 3 Sawy., 144.)

[U. S., 1883.]

Code of California, section 2955, insofar as it requires the payment of 70 cents for each passenger inspected to ascertain if he is afflicted with leprosy, coming into the United States by sea, and imposing a fine for nonpayment upon the owners and consignees of the vessel bringing the passengers, is unconstitutional and void.(People v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 16 Fed., 344; 8 Sawy., 640.)

[U. S., 1886.]

Act of Congress February 26, 1885. prohibiting the importation of aliens under contract to perform labor within the United States,

is within the power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and constitutional.-(1886, United States v. Craig, 28 Fed., 795. 1890, In re Florio, 43 Fed., 114.)

[U. S., 1889.]

The owners of a Danish ship claimed that head money exacted for immigrants was illegally exacted and should be refunded. Held, that the exaction fell within the act of August 3, 1882, chapter 376 (22 Stat., 214), and that the court could not give weight to an argument that the "favored-nation" clause of the treaty with Denmark affected the case.-(Thingvalla v. United States, 24 Ct. Cl., 255.)

[U. S. C. C. A., Cal., 1904.]

The immigration laws of the United States in so far as relates to punishment for their violation are highly penal, and are to be strictly construed, and their provisions applied only to cases clearly within their terms and their spirit, construed as a whole.-(Moffit v. United States, 128 F., 375; 63 C. C. A., 117.)

[U. S. C. C. A., Cal., 1906.]

Chinese-exclusion act, May 5, 1892, ch. 60, 27 Stat., 25 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1319), in so far as it places the burden of proof of the right of a Chinese person without a certificate to remain in the United States on him, is valid.-(Low Foon Yin v. United States Immigration Comm'r, 145 F., 791; 76 C. C. A., 355.)

[U. S. Sup., Cal., 1902.]

Chinese-exclusion act, September 13, 1888, ch. 1015, sec. 8, 25 Stat., 478 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 1315), which relates entirely to the privilege of transit across the territory of the United States in the course of a journey by Chinese persons to or from other countries, was independent legislation, not dependent, like section 1, 25 Stat., 476 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 1312), on the ratification of the treaty then pending to become a law, and it became effective on its passage. (C. C., 1901, In re Lee Gon Yung, 111 F., 998. Affirmed 22 Sup. Ct., 690; 185 U. S., 306; 46 L. Ed., 921.)

[U. S. C. C., N. Y., 1903.]

1

2

3

4

Act of Congress, March 3, 1903 (ch. 1012, 22 Stat., 1213), provides 5 for the deportation of aliens and declares (sec. 4) that the inhibition against the importation of aliens to perform labor or service of any kind, skilled or unskilled, shall not apply to persons belonging to any recognized learned profession. Held, that aliens imported under contract who were expert accountants were not members of a recognized learned profession, within the terms of the exception, and were therefore not entitled to entry. (In re Ellis, 124 F., 637. In re Charalambis, id.)

[U. S. D. C., Oreg.. 1903.]

The authority conferred on the Secretary of the Treasury by the act of March 3, 1903. sec. 21, 32 Stat., 1218, ch. 1012 (U. S.

6