When a Chinese person, after final hearing on habeas corpus, has been remanded to the marshal to be deported from the United States upon the vessel by which she was brought to this country, and such vessel has departed, she can not be admitted to bail upon a recognizance that she will appear when a vessel is ready to depart.-(Case of the Chinese Wife, 21 Fed., 808.)

1

The order of the President in regard to removal of Chinamen may 2 be retrospective and prospective, and inasmuch as the law imposes on him the duty of causing the person to be removed to the country whence he came after he shall have been found to be unlawfully here by a "justice, judge, or commissioner," but gives him no power to revise that judgment, and apparently confers on him no discretion in the matter, he may direct that all persons who shall thus have been found to be unlawfully here shall be removed, and he may instruct the officer to procure them tickets and effectuate their removal; and if there be any difficulty, from the want of appropriation or means at his command, in fulfilling that duty, it is for Congress to remove it. (In re Chow Goo Pooi, 25 Fed., 77.)

[U. S., 1892.]

An alien immigrant detained by the collector of the port of San Francisco on report of the state commissioner of immigration that she came within the excluded class under act of August 3, 1882, chapter 376, was placed in a mission house as a more suitable place than the steamship pending the decision of the question of her right to land, and was kept there by agreement between her attorney and the attorney for the United States until final judgment upon a writ of habeas corpus. Held, that placing her in such mission left her in the same position, as far as regarded her right to land, as if she had never been removed from the steamship.-(Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S., 651; 12 Sup. Ct., 336; 35 L. Ed., 1146.)

[U. S., 1895.]

Aliens held in custody by immigrant inspectors for deportation under the contract-labor laws and by virtue of a warrant from the Secretary of the Treasury, which does not contain the names of the prisoners, or any names idem sonans, are held without the petitioner could not be released on habeas corpus, on the mere ground that his statements in regard to the contract were untrue.—(În re Dietze, 40 Fed., 324.)

[U. S., 1891.]

That a Chinaman carried on a laundry at a town in Canada for four months; that he had been in the same Province for a considerable period before that; and that he possessed a return certificate, issued by the Canadian officials at Vancouver, is sufficient to show that he acquired a domicile in Canada when there is nothing to show that he left China with the ulterior purpose of coming to the United States. except the fact that he recently made attempts to enter.—(United States v. Chong Sam (D. C.), 47 Fed., 878.)

That a Chinese person who has acquired a domicile in Canada and who is convicted of having recently entered the United States contrary to law, possesses a certificate of leave to return to Canada, is

3

4

5

6

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

• 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

4

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.)

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 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.)

6

7

8

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,

A Chinese person who, when brought before a United States commissioner 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 2 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.)

A restaurant proprietor, who keeps a place for serving meals, and 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 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.)

Chinese persons engaged in keeping a restaurant and lodging house 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.)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

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.)