Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Opinion of the Court.

UNITED STATES v. LEE YEN TAI.

OERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEC

OND CIRCUIT.

CHIN BAK KAN v. UNITED STATES.

CHIN YING v. UNITED STATES.

APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

Nos. 603, 625, 526. Argued March 13, 14, 1902.-Decided April 21, 1902.

In case statutes are alleged to be inconsistent with each other, effect must

be given to both, if by any reasonable interpretation, that can be done; and like principles must control when the question is whether an act of Congress has been superseded in whole or in part by a subsequent treaty with a foreign nation.

THESE three cases were all argued together. The opinion of the court is entitled only in No. 503, United States v. Lee Yen Tai. The case is stated in that opinion of the court.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Hoyt for the United States in all the cases.

Mr. B. Lewinson and Mr. Max J. Kohler for the appellees in No. 503, and for the appellants in Nos. 525 and 526.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is here upon a certified question of law arising in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The facts out of which the question arose and the question itself are shown by the following statement sent up by that court:

“On the 8th day of October, 1900, complaint was made un

Opinion of the Court.

der oath before a commissioner of the United States for the Northern District of New York, charging that Lee Gin Moy, alias Lee Yen Tai, on the sixth day of October, A. D. 1900, did unlawfully come into the United States from China, he being then and there a Chinese person and laborer, and not being a diplomatic or other officer of the Chinese or any other Government, and without producing the certificate required of Chinese persons seeking to enter the United States, and that he was not entitled to be or remain within the United States.' A warrant for said defendant's arrest was issued by said United States commissioner on the same day, and after a hearing before said commissioner he issued a warrant of deportation in which the following adjudication was placed on record :

“I now hereby find and adjudge that the said Lee Gin Moy is a Chinese person and laborer; that he is not a diplomatic or other officer of the Chinese, or of any other Government, and unlawfully entered the United States as charged in said complaint; and I further adjudge him, said Lee Gin Moy, guilty of not being lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States.'

“Said defendant's immediate removal to China by the United States marshal for said Northern District of New York upon said warrant was ordered by said commissioner. While the marshal had him in custody, and in process of deportation, habeas corpus was issued by the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The petition upon which the writ of habeas corpus issued averred, among other things, that said Lee Yen Tai was a merchant having an interest of one thousand dollars ($1000) in the capital of the firm, and is not a laborer, and has not been a laborer, but is a merchant and member of a firm specified in the petition, and has always been a merchant since he had any status.

“ Before the District Court the prisoner was produced, and a return made which included the aforesaid warrant of depor tation ; said return was traversed and no evidence as to defend ant's status other than the allegations in the aforesaid petition and return was before the District Court. Upon the hearing in the District Court the petitioner was discharged upon giving

Opinion of the Court.

bail for his appearance as may be determined by any final order on appeal. Appeal was duly taken by the United States to tu s court."

By the preamble of the act of May 6, 1882, c. 126, it was declared that in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangered the good order of certain localities within our territory. It was therefore provided that from and after the expiration of ninety days from the above date, and until the expiration of ten years from such date, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States should be suspended, and during such suspension it was made unlawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or having come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States. $ 1. Penalties were imposed upon the master of any vessel who should knowingly bring within the United States on his vessel and land or permit to be landed any Chinese laborer from any foreign port or place. $ 2. In order to identify such Chinese as were entitled, under the treaty of November 17, 1880, 22 Stat. 826, to go from and come to the United States of their free will and accord, provision was made for certificates to be granted to such persons. $ 4.

The twelfth section of the above act was as follows:

“ That no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land without producing to the proper

officer of customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons seeking to land from a vessel. And

And any Chinese person found unlawfully within the United States shall be caused to remove therefrom to the country from whence he came, by direction of the President of the United States, and at the cost of the United States, after being brought before some justice, judge or commissioner of a court of the United States and found to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States.” 22 Stat. 58, 61.

By the act of July 5, 1884, c. 220, the twelfth section of the above act of May 6, 1882, was amended so as to read as follows:

“That no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land without producing to the proper officer of customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons

Opinion of the Court.

seeking to land from a vessel. And

And any Chinese person found unlawfully within the United States shall be caused to be removed therefrom to the country from whence he came, and at the cost of the United States, after being brought before some justice, judge or commissioner of a court of the United States and found to be one not lawfully entitled to be or to remain in the United States; and in all such cases the person who brought or aided in bringing such person to the United States shall be liable to the Government of the United States for all necessary expenses incurred in such investigation and removal ; and all peace officers of the several States and Territories of the United States are hereby invested with the same authority as a marshal or United States marshal in reference to carrying out the provisions of this act or the act of which this is amendatory, as a marshal or deputy marshal of the United States, and shall be entitled to like compensation to be audited and paid by the same officers. And the United States shall pay all costs and charges for the maintenance and return of any Chinese person having the certificate prescribed by law as entitling such Chinese person to come into the United States who may not have been permitted to land from any vessel by reason of the provisions of this act." 23 Stat. 115, 117, 118.

Subsequently, by the act of May 5, 1892, c. 60, entitled “ An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States," it was provided that “all laws now (then) in force prohibiting and regulating the coming into this country of Chinese persons and persons of Chinese descent are hereby continued in force for a period of ten years from the passage of this [that] act.” 27 Stat. 25, $ 1.

The question certified to us is whether the twelfth section of the act of 1882, amended and continued in force as above stated, was abrogated by the treaty with. China proclaimed December 8, 1894. 28 Stat. 1210.

As this question cannot be properly disposed of without examining the entire treaty, the provisions of the treaty are here given in full:

“Whereas, on the 17th day of November, A. D. 1880, and of Kwanghsii the sixth year, tenth moon, fifteenth day, a treaty

Opinion of the Court.

was concluded between the United States and China, for the purpose of regulating, limiting or suspending the coming of Chinese laborers to, and their residence in, the United States;

“And whereas the Government of China, in view of the antagonism and much deprecated and serious disorders to which the presence of Chinese laborers has given rise in certain parts of the United States, desires to prohibit the emigration of such laborers from China to the United States;

“And whereas the two Governments desire to coöperate in prohibiting such emigration, and to strengthen in other ways the bonds of friendship between the two countries ;

“And whereas the two Governments are desirous of adopting reciprocal measures for the better protection of the citizens or subjects of each within the jurisdiction of the other; “Now, therefore, etc.

ART. I. The high contracting parties agree that for a period of ten years, beginning with the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, the coming, except under the conditions hereinafter specified, of Chinese laborers to the United States shall be absolutely prohibited.

“Arr. II. The preceding article shall not apply to the return to the United States of any registered Chinese laborer who has a lawful wife, child or parent in the United States, or property therein of the value of one thousand dollars, or debts of like amount due him and pending settlement. Nevertheless, every such Chinese laborer shall, before leaving the United States, deposit, as a condition of his return, with the collector of customs of the district from which he departs, a full description in writing of his family, or property, or debts, as aforesaid, and shall be furnished by said collector with such certificate of his right to return under this treaty as the laws of the United States may now or hereafter prescribe and not inconsistent with the provisions of this treaty; and should the written description aforesaid be proved to be false, the right of return thereunder, or of continued residence after return, shall in each case be forfeited. And such right of return to the United States shall be exercised within one year from the date of leaving the United States; but such right of return to the United States

« AnteriorContinuar »