1 2 3 States. The purpose of the act was to exclude laborers coming from China subject to the stipulations of the treaty of 1880 with that country, and to exclude laborers of the Chinese race coming from any other part of the world.--(In re Ah Lung, 18 Fed., 28.) [U. S., 1884.] Chinese laborers whose coming to the United States is not suspended by the act of 1884 are: (1) Those who were in the country at the date of the treaty of November 17, 1880, or have come before August 6, 1882; and (2) those who, having departed after the passage of the act of 1882, shall produce the evidence required by the act of 1884. (In re Shong Toon, 21 Fed., 386.) The certificate required of Chinese returning to this country can not entitle the wife or children of the holder to enter with him. There must be either an independent certificate for each or else the certificate issued to the husband or father must contain also a certificate of the facts required, both as to the wife and each minor child sought to be introduced.-(In re Ah Quan, 21 Fed., 182.) [U. S., 1894.] A Chinaman serving a term of imprisonment at hard labor is a "laborer," within act of May 5, 1892, section 6, requiring Chinese to register, and not a "merchant," within the exemption of act of November 3, 1893, section 2, defining "merchant" as a person engaged in buying and selling merchandise at a fixed place of business, which business is conducted in his name, and who does not engage in manual labor, except such as is necessary in the conduct of his business as such merchant, though prior to his imprisonment he owned an interest, in the name of another, in a mercantile firm, and retains it during his imprisonment.-(United States v. Wong Ah Hung (D. C.), 62 Fed., 1005.) 4 A restaurant proprietor is a laborer, and not a merchant, within the exclusion act.-(In re Ah Yow (D. C.), 59 Fed., 561.) [U. S., 1895.] 5 A Chinese person who, during his residence in the United States, was engaged in business as a member of a firm, but occasionally, during a year previous to his departure for a temporary visit, worked for short periods as a house servant, to accommodate an old employer when he was without a servant, was engaged in manual labor within the exclusion act of November 3, 1893.-(Lew Jim v. United States, 66 Fed., 953; 14 C. C. A., 281; 29 U. S. App., 513.) 6 [U. S., 1883.] The term "laborer" is used in the treaty with China of November 17, 1880, and the act in aid thereof of May 6, 1882, in its popular sense, and does not include any person but those whose occupation involves physical toil and who work for wages.-(In re Ho King, 14 Fed., 724.) (N. Y., 1882.] A Chinese seaman is a "laborer," and can not, therefore, leave his vessel to come ashore even for temporary purposes.-(In re Fook, 65 How. Prac., 404.) [U. S. D. C., Cal., 1908.] The provisions of immigration act of February 20, 1907, ch. 1134, 34 Stat., 898 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 391), excluding alien immigrants afflicted with certain diseases, etc., are applicable to Chinese immigrants otherwise entitled to admission. (In re Lee Sher Wing, 164 F., 506.) [U. S. C. C. A., N. J., 1909.] Under Commerce and Labor rule 9, providing that every Chinese person refused admission to the United States, being actually or constructively on the conveyance by which he was brought to a port of entry, must be returned to the country whence he came, at the expense of the transportation agency owning such conveyance, where the petitioning Chinese persons were apprehended in an attempt to unlawfully enter from Canada, and were ordered to be dealt with according to law, an inspector had no right to take them to Hoboken, to deport them direct to China, but should have returned them to Canada. (Lui Lum v. United States, 166 F., 106; 92 C. C. A., 90.) [U. S. D. C., Md., 1908.] Petitioner, a Canadian by birth and citizenship, entered the United States in 1901 and was an inmate of houses of prostitution in various cities until 1905, when she went to Philadelphia to care for an invalid sister. She remained there two years, when she resumed life as a prostitute, and in the fall of 1907 returned to Canada, where she stayed four days, when she returned to the United States and continued her misconduct until she was arrested. Held, that the threeyear period within which she was subject to deportation dated from her return from Canada, and that she was therefore unlawfully within the country.-(United States v. Hook, 166 F., 1007.) [U. S. C. C., Oreg., 1908.] 1 2 3 4 Immigration act of February 20, 1907, ch. 1134, sec. 20, 34 Stat., 5 904 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp., 1907, p. 401), provides that any alien who shall enter the United States in violation of law shall, on the warrant of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, be taken into custody and deported to the country whence he came. Section 21, 34 Stat., 905 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp., 1907, p. 402), declares that, in case the Secretary be satisfied that an alien has been found in the United States in violation of the act, he shall cause the alien to be taken into custody and returned as provided in the preceding section. The act also specifically provides for inspection at water ports of entry, and authorizes the Commissioner-General of Immigration to prescribe rules for entry at border ports pursuant to which Blaine, Wash., was designated by rule 24 as a border port of entry from Canada, and by rule 25 it was declared that if an alien arrives in Canada, whose destination is the United States, inspection shall be 1 2 3 had at certain ports in Canada, and if applicant is entitled to admission, he shall receive a certificate from the United States commissioner of immigration for Canada, which, on presentation at the border port, shall entitle him to entry without further examination or identification, but that, if an alien destined to Canada applies to a border port for admission, he shall submit to inspection by a board of special inquiry at certain border ports, including Blaine. Held, that where a Japanese laborer, excluded by Executive order March 14, 1907, came to Canada destined to the United States, or came destined to Canada and thereafter surreptitiously entered the United States, passing through Blaine at night without presenting himself to the inspection officers, he was unlawfully in the United States and subject to deportation.-(Ex parte Hamaguchi, 161 F., 185.) [U. S. C. C., Oreg., 1908.] Immigration act of February 20, 1907, ch. 1134, sec. 32, 34 Stat., 908 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp., 1907, p. 408), provides that the Commissioner-General of Immigration shall prescribe rules for the entry and inspection of aliens along the borders of Canada and Mexico, and section 22, 34 Stat., 905 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp., 1907, p. 403), gives general authority to establish rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the act. Held, that rule 24, providing that any alien who enters the United States across the Canadian border at any other point than those designated shall be deemed to have entered the country unlawfully, does not exceed the scope of immigration act of February 20, 1907, ch. 1134, sec. 36, 34 Stat., 908 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp., 1907, p. 409), declaring that all aliens who enter the United States except at the seaports thereof, or at such place or places as the Secretary of Commerce and Labor from time to time designates, shall be adjudged unlawfully in the United States, etc., and is valid, though no penalty is prescribed for violation thereof. (Ex parte Hamaguchi, 161 F., 185.) [U. S. Sup., Wash., 1903.] Japanese subjects who are "paupers or persons likely to become a public charge," and are therefore forbidden to enter the United States by immigration act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat., 1085, ch. 551 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 1294), are not given such right of entry by the provisions of the treaty of March 21, 1895, with Japan, that the citizens or subjects of each of the two countries shall have "full liberty to enter, travel, or reside in any part of the territories of the other country," especially since such treaty expressly excepts from its operation any ordinance or regulation relating to "police and public security."-(Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 23 S. Ct., 611; 189 U. S., 86; 47 L. Ed., 721.) [U. S. D. C., Pa., 1901.] Where a naturalized citizen was married in Russia, but the marriage, though valid there, was illegal in the United States, his alleged wife and their child, who are likely to become public charges, are properly ordered to be deported on their arrival at a port in the United States.-(United States v. Rodgers, 109 F., 886.) [U. S. C. C., N. Y., 1904.] Where an alien arrived by water at the port of New York and was subject to deportation as belonging to one of the classes of aliens whose entry is prohibited, it was no defense to his deportation that he had three years before arrived in the United States by water and had remained for four months, during which he bought a farm, took out his first naturalization papers, and since his second arrival he had contracted marriage in the United States.-(In re Kleibs, 128 F., 656.) [U. S. C. C., N. Y., 1903.] 1 Act of Congress of March 3, 1903, ch. 1012, 32 Stat., 1213, provides 2 for the deportation of aliens and declares (section 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., Minn., 1908.] Under act of Congress of February 20, 1907, ch. 1134, 34 Stat., 898 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp., 1907, p. 389), providing for the deportation of certain classes of aliens, that an alien ordered to be deported had once in good faith acquired a residence prior to her return after a temporary absence in a foreign country did not entitle her to enter on her return and remain in the United States.-(Ex parte Patterson, 166 F., 536.) [U. S. C. C., N. Y., 1908.] The language of rule 4 of the regulations of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization relating to the admission and exclusion of aliens that "the provisions of the immigration act do not apply to aliens who have once been duly admitted to the United States, or to any waters, territory, or other place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, proceeding to or from the continental territory of the United States," applies only to aliens who have been admitted to the United States or its dependencies, and are proceeding either from the dependencies to the continent, or from the continent to the dependencies, and has no application to an alien arriving from a foreign country, although he has been previously admitted.(United States v. Watchorn, 164 F., 152.) WHO ARE NOT." [U. S., 1883.] A Chinese actor or theatrical performer is not a "laborer," within the exclusion act (act of May 6, 1882), and is therefore entitled to come to and reside in the United States at pleasure. (In re Ho King, 14 Fed., 724.) The term "Chinese laborers," as used in the act of Congress of May 6, 1882, "to execute the treaty stipulations relating to the Chi See also pp. 278 and 310. 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 nese," contained in the treaty of 1868, as modified by the treaty of 1880, must have the same signification as when used in the treaty, and must be held to mean the subjects of the Government of China, to which the provisions of the treaty relate; and the inhibitions of the act can not be construed to exclude from our shores laborers who are Chinese by race and language, but who are not, and never were, subjects of the Emperor of China, or resident within his dominions. (United States v. Douglas, 17 Fed., 634.) [U. S., 1893.] The words "Chinese laborers," as used in section 6 of the Geary Act (27 Stat., 25) have the same meaning as in the treaty with China of 1880 (22 Stat., 826), 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 benefit of the general provisions of the Burlingame treaty (16 Stat., 739) but those who come to the United States for purposes of teaching, study, mercantile transactions, travel, or curiosity.-(United States v. Ah Fawn (D. C.), 57 Fed., 591.) [Cal., 1882.] Where a Chinese laborer has acquired a residence, he does not lose the same by shipping as one of the crew on an American vessel at an American port for a voyage to a foreign port and return, though he may land at such foreign port with permission of_the master of the vessel.-(Case of the Chinese Cabin Waiter, 10 Pac. Coast Law J., 52; 13 Fed., 286; In re Ah Sing, id.) [U. S. D. C., Mont., 1908.] A son of a Chinese merchant, lawfully domiciled in the United States, who came to this country from China while a minor to join his father, and who during the remainder of his minority labored and studied in the United States, is entitled to remain, after attaining his majority, though he has since worked as a laborer.—(United States v. Foo Duck, 163 F., 440.) [U. S. C. C. A., Ohio, 1906.] The alien contract labor law as amended in 1903, act of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat., 1214, sec. 4, ch. 1012 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp., 1905, p. 277), does not apply to a man who entered the United States as an immigrant from Germany when young and remained continuously domiciled and working in this country for twelve or more years, although without becoming naturalized, and who then went temporarily into Canada, where he had been for two weeks when the contract alleged to be in violation of the statute was made.-(D. C., United States v. Aultman Co., 143 F., 922, affirmed 148 F., 1022; 79 C. C. A., 457.) [U. S. D. C., Pa., 1905.] An alien, who in good faith has acquired and maintains his residence in the United States, on his return from a temporary absence |