[U. S. C. C. A., N. Y., 1900.] Evidence that a Chinese person since he came into the United States has been assisting the business of a mercantile company, keeping the books and selling the goods of such company, interest in the stock of goods of such company, is insufficient to establish his status as a merchant within the status; it not being shown that his name appears in the partnership articles, or that he is in fact a partner.(Decree (D. C., 1899) 94 F., 824, reversed; United States v. Pin Kwan, 100 F., 609; 40 C. C. A., 618.) [U. S. D. C., N. Y., 1903.] Act of September 13, 1888, 25 Stat., 477 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 1314), provides that Chinese laborers who depart from the United States may return at enumerated ports only on compliance with sections 5, 6, and 7, which require that the alien shall have a wife, child, or parent in the United States, or property of a certain value, etc., and that on leaving he shall apply to the collector of customs for the district from which he wishes to depart, at least a month prior to his departure, and make oath concerning his family, property, etc. Held, that where a Chinese laborer holding a United States labor certificate departed from the United States at a point other than the place of departure prescribed, without applying to the collector of customs for permission to leave, etc., and thereafter reentered the United States at a nondesignated point, in the absence of evidence as to his intention in departing, he had forfeited his right to remain in the United States, and was subject to deportation.-(United States v. Tuck Lee, 120 F., 989.) [U. S. D. C., N. Y., 1905.] A Chinese merchant domiciled in the United States has the right to bring into this country with his wife minor children legally adopted by him in China, where it is shown that the adoption was bona fide, and that the children have lived as members of his family and have been supported by him for several years.-(Ex parte Fong Yim, 134 F., 938.) Neither the Chinese treaty of 1880 nor subsequent legislation relating to Chinese exclusion has any relation to Chinese persons, not of the laboring class, who were, at the time of the adoption of that treaty domiciled in the United States, and who have since continued to reside therein; and such a person who temporarily leaves the country, with the intention of returning, can not be excluded on his return. because he is not included in one of the classes expressly excepted from the operation of the exclusion acts, and who alone are permitted to enter the United States by rules 1 and 2 of the regulations adopted by the Department of Commerce and Labor, such rules being applicable only to persons seeking to enter for the first time.-(Ex parte Ng Quong Ming, 135 F., 378.) [U. S. Sup., N. Y., 1901.] A Chinaman seeking to enter the United States on a certificate showing that he was formerly engaged in this country as a merchant 79521°-VOL 39-11-21 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 is required by act of Congress of November 3, 1893, ch. 14, sec. 2, 28 Stat., 7 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 1323), to establish to the testimony of two credible witnesses other than Chinese the fact that he conducted such business for at least one year before his departure from the United States, and that during such year he was not engaged in the performance of any manual labor, except such as was necessary in the conduct of his business as such merchant.-(Judgment (1898), In re Li Sing, 86 F., 896; 30 C. C. A., 451; 38 U. S. App., 1, affirmed. Li Sing v. United States, 21 S. Ct., 449; 180 U. S., 486; 45 L. Ed., 634.) [U. S. D. C., Ohio, 1897.] A Chinaman who is a member of a firm of Chinese merchants engaged in buying and selling merchandise at a fixed place of business, and who is sent out by such firm, as an employee, to take charge of another mercantile establishment in which said firm owns a onehalf interest, is a merchant, and not a laborer, within the meaning of the act of November 3, 1893, and is not liable to deportation while thus employed. (In re Chu Poy, D. C., 81 F., 826.) [U. S. D. C., Ohio, 1900.] The burden rests upon a Chinaman arrested for deportation, as being unlawfully within the United States, to prove that he belongs to one of the privileged classes named in the statute; and when he claims to be a merchant he must show a fixed place of business, and such frequent sales of merchandise as entitle 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., 188.) [U. S. C. C. A., Wash., 1905.] Where a Chinese female was sold as a slave in China, and her master, with the assistance of other Chinaman, brought her into the United States for immoral purposes, and after her escape she was cared for at a church home for Chinese women, and it appeared that a decree for deportation would be equivalent to remanding her to perpetual slavery and degradation, she was entitled to her discharge, under Constitution of the United States, amendment 13, providing that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States. (D. C., 1904, United States v. Ah Sou, 132 F., 878; reversed, 138 F., 775; 71 C. C. A., 141.) [U. S. Sup., Wash., 1900.] The wife of a Chinese merchant residing in this country, not belonging to the laboring class, is not a person excluded by the laws and, upon her arrival, is entitled to enter and take up her residence with her husband, without producing the certificate prescribed by 1 Supp. Rev. St., 2d Ed., p. 459, sec. 6.-(In re Li Foon, C. C., 1897, 80 F., 881, disapproved. D. C., 1897, United States v. Gue Lim, 83 F., 136, judgment affirmed, 20 S. Ct., 415; 176 U. S., 459; 44 L. Ed., 544.) The wife and minor children of a Chinese merchant, who is domiciled in this country, may, under the act of Congress of 1884, construed in connection with the treaty of 1880, enter the country by reason of the right of the husband and father, without the certificate mentioned in the act.-(Judgment, D. C., 1897, 83 F., 136, affirmed. United States v. Gue Lim, 20 S. Ct., 415; 176 U. S., 459; 44 L. Ed., 544.) [U. S. D. C., Wash., 1898.] 1 The wives and minor children of Chinese merchants lawfully 2 domiciled in the United States are not laborers, and not within the intent of the exclusion acts.-(In re Lee Yee Sing, 85 F., 635.) INDEX. [Figures in roman refer to page; those in italic to paragraph.] Act of May 31, 1870.. A. Page and paragraph. Mar. 3, 1875. May 6, 1882.. 247 5; 251 8; 298 3 275 8; 276 5, 6; 286 2, 3, 5, 6; 287 Feb. 26, 1885.. Feb. 23, 1887. Sept. 13, 1888. 241 1,5; 242 5; Oct. 1, 1888.. Oct. 19, 1888.. Mar. 3, 1891. 285 1; 3; 225 1,5 179 171 8, 4: 215 5; 216 1-3, 6, 8, 9; 164 4; |