1

2

3

4

5

6

sufficient evidence of intention to return there to show prima facie that he has not lost his domicile.-(United States v. Chong Sam (D. C.), 47 Fed., 878.)

[U. S., 1892.]

Under act of May 5, 1892, known as the Geary Act, the Government may, at its election, merely deport any Chinese person adjudged to be unlawfully in the United States or imprison such person or deport him, and where the Government elects to deport only the offense is not an infamous crime, requiring procedure by indictment or presentment of a grand jury.-(United States v. Wong Sing (D. C.), 51 Fed., 79; In re Ng Loy Hoe (C. C.), 53 Fed., 914.)

[U. S., 1884.]

The acts of Congress, both original and amendatory, contemplate that parties unlawfully bringing here Chinese laborers prohibited from landing shall take them back to the country from which they are brought, or at least beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, and a steamship company can not escape from this duty by the departure of the vessel on which they are brought or any change in its officers or management pending proceedings to determine the right of a Chinaman to reenter the United States.-(Case of the Unused Tag, 21 Fed., 701.)

[U. S., 1882.]

A vessel touches at a port of the United States, within the meaning of section 3, act of May 6, 1882, to exclude Chinese laborers from the United States, when she calls there for orders, or a cargo for a foreign port; and Chinese laborers who are on board of her as passengers or crew are not unlawfully in the country, contrary to said act, during her stay for such purpose.-(In re Moncan, 14 Fed., 44.) But if such Chinese leave the vessel while in an American port, their presence becomes unlawful.-(In re Moncan, 14 Fed., 44; 28 Int. Rev. Rec., 313.)

[U. S., 1893.]

Congress having appropriated funds for the enforcement of the Geary Act, a district judge should take judicial cognizance that there are funds for the enforcement of any or all of the sections of such act, and should order the deportation of a Chinaman who has not procured certificates of residence, as required by section 6, although the Attorney-General has informed such judge "that there are no funds to execute the Geary law, so far as the same provides for the deportation of Chinamen who have not obtained certificates of residence." (United States v. Chum Shang Yuen (D. C.), 57 Fed., 588.)

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

A proceeding to expel or exclude aliens under the federal law is civil, and not criminal, in its nature.-(United States v. Moy You, 126 F., 226.)

PROPER SUBJECTS OF DEPORTATION.

WHO ARE."

A Chinese laborer, notwithstanding the fact that such laborer had been allowed by an administrative officer to enter the United States upon a certificate furnished him by a consular officer of the Chinese Empire located in this country stating that he was a merchant, the administrative decision not being final on the question of right to reside in the United States.-(Li Sing v. United States, 180 U. S., 486, Sup. Ct., Mar. 18, 1901.)

A Chinese laborer who enters a United States port as a member of the crew of a vessel plying to such port, and who effects an escape while the vessel is lying in the port.-(In re George Moncan, alias Ah Wah, 14 F. R., 44; C. C. A., Oct. 27, 1882.)

A Chinese laborer arrested for being in the United States in violation of the exclusion acts, who had been in this country continuously for twenty-two years prior to April 1, 1891, but had gone to Canada, in the last week of that month, without making provision for reentry. (United States v. Don On, 49 F. R., 569, Ĉir. Ct., Nov. 20, 1891.)

An unregistered Chinese person arrested for failure to register, unless he can show one of the excuses for failure to procure the certificate enumerated in section 6 of the act of May 5, 1892, and notwithstanding the fact that he does show a residence in the United States for the period required thereby.-(In re Ny Look, 56 F. R., 81, Cir. Ct., May 26, 1893.)

A Chinese laborer convicted of felony, at the expiration of his term of imprisonment, as such person, is not entitled to register under the act of November 3, 1893.-(United States v. Chew Cheong, 61 F. R., 200, Dist. Ct., Apr. 12, 1894.)

Although a Chinaman serving sentence at hard labor was a merchant prior to his imprisonment and during his term of imprisonment has retained his mercantile interest, his status on release is that of a laborer merely, and he is subject to deportation for having failed to register under the registration acts.-(United States v. Wong Ah Hung, 62 F. R., 1005, Dist. Ct., Aug. 29, 1894; United States v. Ah Poing, 69 F. R., 972, Dist. Ct., Sept. 24, 1895; United States v. Chung Ki Foon, 83 F. R., 143, Dist. Ct., Oct. 27, 1897.)

A Chinaman who, upon arrest, presented a certificate in due form, issued to him as a merchant of China, but in whose case it appeared that immediately upon landing he proceeded to and continued in the employment of a laborer; for it is as much a violation of the Chineseexclusion acts for a laborer who by any trick or evasion secures an entry to our ports to remain in the United States as it would have been to originally land on our shores.-(United States v. Yong Yew, 83 F. R., 832, Dist. Ct., Nov. 23, 1897.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

A Chinese person who, ever since his admission, has been occupied 8 as a laborer, although he landed on an uncontradicted certificate as a

a See also pp. 284 and 311.

1

merchant under section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884.-(United States v. Ng. Park Tan, 86 F. R., 605, Dist. Ct., Apr. 12, 1898.)

A Chinese person allowed to land without presenting the certific: te required by section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884, regardless of his occupation since landing, the government officer's erroneous action in such case not being even prima facie evidence of such person's lawful residence. (Mar Bing Guey v. United States, 97 F. R., 576, Dist. Ct., Nov. 1, 1899.) 2 A Chinese person arrested for deportation on the ground of unlawful residence in the United States who claims to be a merchant, unless he shows a fixed place of business and such frequent sales of merchandise as entitles him to be considered a merchant within the ordinary meaning of the term, or an actual and substantial interest in some firm of such merchants.-(United States v. Lung Hong, 105 F. R., 188, Dist. Ct., May 5, 1900.)

3

Chinese persons who, during the six months succeeding the passage of the act of November 3, 1893, were merchants and therefore not required to register, but who afterwards left the country, disposing of whatever business they had possessed during the said six months, and then returned and engaged in laboring occupations.-(United States v. Moy Yim, 115 F. R., 652, Dist. Ct., Apr. 29, 1902.)

4 A Chinese person, duly registered, who departed from the United States without securing a return certificate, as required by section 7 of the act of September 13, 1888, thereafter reentering at some place other than a designated port.-(United States v. Tuck Lee, 120 F. R., 989, Dist. Ct., Mar. 21, 1903.)

5

6

7

8

A Chinese person who entered the United States upon a certificate granted by the Chinese authorities in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884, where it is shown that from the time of his entry, several years before his arrest, he has been a manual laborer. (Chain Chio Fong v. United States, 133 F. R., 154, C. C. A., Oct. 3, 1904.)

A Chinaman admitted to the United States on a certificate issued under section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884, but not stating the estimated value of his business in China, nor fully establishing his status as a merchant.-(Cheung Pang v. United States, 133 F. R., 392, C. C. A., Oct. 3, 1904.)

A Chinese minor who law fully entered the United States as the son of a Chinese merchant domiciled in this country but had lost such status by the return of his father to China to remain permanently, his status thereafter being determined by his own occupation.(United States v. Joe Dick, 134 F. R., 988, Dist. Ct., Feb. 4, 1905.)

A Chinese laborer who was a minor, 19 or 20 years old, at the time of the passage of the registration acts but who did not register thereunder. (United States v. Joe Dick, 134 F. R., 988, Dist. Ct., Feb. 4, 1905.)

9 A Chinese slave girl brought to the United States, and her entry secured by fraud in violation of the Chinese-exclusion laws, and who was subsequently married in this country to a Chinese inhabitant registered as a laborer, and not entitled to have a wife in this country. (United States v. Ah Sou, 138 F. R., 775, C. C. A., May 1, 1905.)

A Chinese person who, when brought before a United States com- 1 missioner or judge charged with being in the country illegally, fails to sustain the burden of establishing his right to remain.-(Toy Tong et al. v. United States, 146 F. R.. 343, C. C. A., June 18, 1906.)

Chinese body servants or nurses, who come to this country to ply their vocations, as they are not persons" other than laborers" within the meaning of section 6 of the act of May 6, 1882, as amended by the act of July 5, 1884.-(18 Opins. Attys. Gen., 542, Feb. 14, 1887.) Regardless of her former status, a Chinese woman who marries a laborer becomes herself a laborer within the intent of the exclusion laws. (In re Ah Moy, 21 F. R., 785, Cir. Ct., Sept. 22, 1884.)

The words "Chinese laborers," as used in the act of May 5, 1892, have the same meaning as in the treaty with China of 1880; therefore, as regards exclusion, they include all Chinese persons not specifically enumerated as exempt.-(United States v. Ah Fawn, 57 F. R., 591, Dist. Ct., Sept. 18, 1893.)

The words "Chinese laborers," as used in section 6 of the act approved May 5, 1892, have the same meaning as in the treaty with China of 1880, in which they are broad enough in their true meaning and intent to include Chinese gamblers and highbinders, since section 2 of the treaty by exclusion provides that no Chinese should be entitled to the benefits of the general provisions of the Burlingame treaty but those who come to the United States for purposes of teaching, study, mercantile transactions, travel, or curiosity.-(Ibid.)

2

3

4

5

A restaurant proprietor, who keeps a place for serving meals, and 6 provides, prepares, and cooks raw materials to suit the tastes of his patrons, is a laborer.-(In re Ah Yow, 59 F. R., 561, Dist. Ct., Jan. 16, 1894.)

A Chinese person who is shown to have acted occasionally as a 7 cook, although his main occupation was that of a merchant, is a laborer within the meaning of the act of November 3, 1893.-(Lew Jim v. United States, 66 F. R., 953, C. C. A., Feb. 18, 1895.)

A Chinese person who during half his time is engaged in cutting and sewing garments for sale by a firm of which he is a member is a laborer within the meaning of the act of November 3, 1893.—(Lai Moy v. United States, 66 F. R., 955, C. C. A., Feb. 18, 1895.)

8

Chinese persons engaged in keeping a restaurant and lodging house 9 and all those dependent upon their labor for support, whether so engaged or not, are "laborers," as defined by the acts of May 5, 1892, and November 3, 1893.-(United States v. Chung Ki Foon, 83 F. R., 143. Dist. Ct., Oct. 27, 1897.)

The status of a Chinese "laborer," under the acts relating to de- 10 portation, was not changed by his arrest upon a criminal charge and his subsequent enforced idleness in jail.-(Ibid.)

A Chinese person whose chief occupation was that of a laundry- 11 man, though an active teacher in a Sunday school, is a "laborer" within the meaning of the acts of May 5, 1892, and November 3, 1893. (In re Leung, 86 F. R., 303, C. C. A., Apr. 7, 1898.)

The son of a domiciled Chinese laborer, admitted as a student, 12 may acquire, by constant attendance at school, a status of his own, and the status of his father as a laborer will not be imputed to him. Reversed; see 93 F. R., 797.-(United States v. Chu Chee et al., 87 F. R., 312, Dist. Ct., May 6, 1898.)

1 A Chinese person who entered the United States without the certificate prescribed by section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884, although, when arrested under the act of May 5, 1892, he shows that since his arrival his occupation has been solely that of a member of the privileged classes.-(United States v. Chu Chee et al., 93 F. R., 797, C. C. A., Mar. 6, 1899.)

2

The status of a minor child of a Chinese laborer is that of his father, notwithstanding the fact that such child may be engaged in the occupation of a student.-(Ibid.)

3 A Chinese person, owning an interest in a mercantile firm but not actively engaged in conducting its business, who is cook in a restaurant of which he is also part owner, is a laborer and not a merchant under the act of November 3, 1893.-(Mar Bing Guey v. United States, 97 F. R., 576, Dist. Ct., Nov. 1, 1899.)

5

6

7

8

9

10

A Chinese person who has been associated in the business of a mercantile company in the United States, keeping the books and selling goods, having an interest in the stock of goods of said company, is not a merchant within the meaning of the statute, it not being shown that his name appears in the partnership articles or that he is in fact a partner, but is a laborer.-(United States v. Pin Kwan, 100 F. R., 609, C. C. A., Feb. 28, 1900.)

The definition of the words "Chinese laborers," employed in section 2 of the act of November 3, 1893, does not limit the meaning of such words so as to except therefrom any persons who were laborers within the intent of those words as used in the treaty of 1880.—(Lee Ah Yin . United States, 116 F. R., 614, C. C. A., May 19, 1902.) The term "Chinese laborers" as defined in the acts of May 5, 1892, and November 3, 1893, includes prostitutes.—(Ibid.)

A clerk in a store is a laborer.-(Mar Sing v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 137 F. R., 875.)

WHO ARE NOT."

A child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, because such person becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution.-(United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S., 649, Sup. Ct., Mar. 28, 1898.)

Chinese persons with regard to whom the record of the commissioner before whom originally tried is to the effect that "the proofs furnished in this case are sufficient to show that these three persons were engaged in business rather than in manual labor in 1894," although later found engaged as laborers in the United States without laborer's certificates of residence.-(Tom Hong v. United States, 193 U. S., 517, Sup. Ct.. Mar. 21, 1904.)

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, 13 F. R., 286, Cir. Ct., Aug. 27, 1882.)

a See also pp. 295 and 310.