1

2

3

4

5

and relating to certificates of residence, include a Chinaman engaged in the business of keeping a restaurant and lodging house and all Chinese persons dependent upon their labor for self-support, whether actually employed as laborers or not.-(United States v. Chung Ki Foon, 83 F., 143.)

The status of a Chinese "laborer" under the acts relating to deportation was not changed by his arrest upon a criminal charge and his subsequent enforced idleness in jail.-(United States v. Chung Ki Foon, 83 F., 143.)

[U. S. C. C. A., Cal., 1904.]

A merchant's certificate issued to a Chinese person under section 6 of act of May 6, 1882, ch. 126, Stat., 60, as amended by act of July 5, 1884, ch. 220, 23 Stat., 116 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 1307), but which does not conform to the requirements of said section by stating the estimated value of his business carried on in China, nor fully establish his status as a merchant, does not entitle him to enter the United States nor to remain after his entry has been permitted.-(Cheung Pang v. United States, 133 F., 392; 66 C. C. A., 454.)

[U. S. D. C., Cal., 1898.]

Where a Chinaman is admitted into this country upon presentation of a certificate in conformity with 22 Stat., 58, as amended by 23 Stat., 115, identifying him as a merchant, proof that ever since he was permitted to land he has continuously engaged in manual labor will overcome the effect of such certificate as prima facie evidence of his right to remain in the United States.-(United States v. Ng Park Tan, 86 F., 605.)

[U. S. C. C. A., N. Y., 1898.]

A Chinaman whose chief occupation was that of a laundryman, but who was an active, voluntary, unpaid teacher in a Sunday school and actively conversed with his countrymen upon religious subjects, is a laborer, and not a Christian missionary, within the meaning of the registration and deportation acts of 1892 and 1893.(In re Leung, 86 F., 303; 30 C. C. A., 69.)

[U. S. D. C., N. Y., 1900.]

The treaty of 1894 with the Empire of China and acts of Congress of 1888 and 1894, excluding "Chinese laborers" from coming into the United States are not applicable to a Chinese seaman who ships as steward aboard a vessel bound for a port in the United States and who lands with the intention and desire to reship as soon as possible. (In re Jam, 101 F., 989.)

[U. S. C. C. A., Wash., 1905.]

6 The fact that the deportation of a Chinese slave girl illegally brought into this country for purposes of prostitution by her master, from whom she subsequently escaped, would result in remanding her to slavery and degredation affords no grounds upon which the courts can refuse to enforce the statute. Judgment (D. C., 1904), 132 F., 878, reversed.-(United States v. Ah Sou, 138 F., 775; 71 C. C. A.,

[U. S. C. C. A., Wash., 1905.]

Where a Chinese female was brought into the United States for immoral purposes, and after her escape was married to a Chinese inhabitant who was registered as a Chinese laborer, but it was questionable whether the parties regarded such a marriage as bona fide, it was no defense to deportation proceedings.-(D. Č., 1904, United States v. Ah Sou, 132 F., 878, reversed; 138 F., 775; 71 C. C. A., 141.)

[U. S. C. C. A., Wash., 1905.]

Where a Chinese person arrested as unlawfully within the United States at the time of his arrest was working as a servant in a boarding house, and since coming to the United States had worked as a cook and delivery man in a store in which he had no interest, he was not a "merchant" as defined by act of Congress May 5, 1892, ch. 60, 27 Stat., 25 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 1320), as amended by act of November 3, 1893, ch. 14, sec. 2, 28 Stat., 8 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 1321), and, not having procured a certificate of residence as required by section 6, a deportation order issued against him was not error.-(Mar Sing v. United States, 137 F., 875; 70 C. C. A., 213.)

[U. S. C. C. A., Wash., 1905.]

Where a Chinese slave girl was brought to the United States, and her entry secured by fraud in violation of the exclusion laws, her subsequent marriage in this country to a Chinese inhabitant registered as a Chinese laborer, and not entitled to have a wife in this country, is not a defense to proceedings for her deportation; and especially where the marriage was at her solicitation, for her protection, and was not followed by cohabitation, nor apparently regarded by the parties as more than a formality. Judgment (Ď. C., 1904), 132 F., 878, reversed.--(United States v. Ah Sou, 138 F., 775; 71 C. C. A., 141.)

[U. S. D. C., Ga., 1904.]

The fact that a Chinese person emigrates to the United States from Hongkong, or even that he is a native of that colony, does not prevent his being subject to the provisions of the Chinese-exclusion act of September 13, 1888, ch. 1015, sec. 13, 25 Stat., 479 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 1317).—(United States v. Foong King, 132 F., 107; Same v. Fah Chung, id.)

[U. S. C. C. A., Oreg., 1899.]

The purpose of the Chinese exclusion acts is to prohibit the entry into the United States of Chinese laborers as a class, and the status of minor children of a laborer is that of their father.-(United States v. Chu Chee, 93 F., 797; 35 C. C. A., 613.)

[U. S. D. C., Tex., 1899.]

A Chinese man who owns an interest in a mercantile firm, but is not actively engaged in the conduct of its business, and who works as a head cook in a restaurant of which he is a part proprietor, is a laborer and not a merchant within the terms of the act of November 3, 1893, 28 Stat., 8.—(Mar Bing Guey v. United States, 97 F., 576.)

1

2

3

4

5

[U. S. D. C., Pa., 1905.]

1 A Chinese minor lawfully entering the United States as the son of a Chinese merchant domiciled in this country lost such status on the return of his father to China to remain permanently, leaving the son, who was still a minor, in this country, and his status thereafter was determined by his own occupation.--(United States v. Joe Dick, 134 F., 988.)

2

3

4

5

The fact that a Chinese laborer was a minor 19 or 20 years old at the time of the passage of the registration acts did not exempt him from the duty of registering thereunder.-(United States v. Joe Dick, 134 F., 988.)

[U. S. D. C., R. I., 1902.]

The fact that during the six months immediately following the passage of the Chinese-exclusion act, act of November 3, 1893, ch. 14, 28 Stat., 7 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 1322), appellants were merchants, as defined in section 2 of said act, and therefore not required to apply to the collector of internal revenue for a certificate of residence, would not be conclusive of their present right to remain in the United States, where they afterwards left the country, disposing of whatever business they had during the six months' period, and without any proven intention of returning, and then returned and engaged in business as laborers.--(United States v. Moy Yim, 115 F., 652; Same v. Chung You, id.; Same v. Dong War, id.; Same v. Fee Toy, id.; Same v. Moy Shang, id.; Same v. Leong Han Che, id.)

[U. S., 1888.]

The Chinese exclusion act approved October 1, 1888, took effect from its passage, and it applies to all Chinese laborers who had departed from the United States and had not in fact returned and arrived in the United States before its passage.-(In re Chae Chan Ping, 36 Fed., 431.)

[U. S., 1884.]

A Chinese laborer resided in the United States from November 17, 1880, until June, 1881, when he departed for Honolulu, in the Hawaiian kingdom, where he remained until September, 1884, when he sought to reenter the United States. Held, that the acts of 1882 and 1884 did not except him from the necessity of presenting the certificate required by those acts, and that without it he could not be allowed to reenter.-(Case of Former Resident by a Chinese Laborer, 21 Fed., 791.)

[U. S., 1883.]

6 A Chinese laborer who left the United States after act of May 6, 1882, went into effect, and who deliberately, and with full knowledge of the law, omitted to apply for his certificate, for the reason that he had no expectation or hope of ever returning to the United States, is not entitled to return.-(In re Tong Ah Chee, 23 Fed., 441.)

7

The petitioner, having full knowledge of the law requiring the production of the certificate provided for under the third section of act of May 6, 1882, by Chinese laborers, having left this country,

and desiring to return after passage of said act, failed to apply for such certificate upon leaving this country, for the reason that he had no expectation of returning to the United States. Held, that he had, by his own omission, renounced the right secured to him by the treaty by neglecting to procure the evidence of that right, which the law requires and which it was entirely within his power to obtain.(In re Pong Ah Chee, 18 Fed., 527.)

[U. S., 1891.]

A Chinese person, 16 years of age, claimed the right to enter the 1 United States because he was born here and hence a citizen. He and his father testified that he was born on a certain street, and went to China with his mother when he was 10 years old; but he remembered no circumstance of his early life and knew nothing of the English language. The father, who worked on a sewing machine, produced a so-called "store book," showing the purchase of a ticket for the boy and his mother; but he gave no particulars of his life in San Francisco, or of his being known among his neighbors as having any children. The boy remembered nothing but the names of three men, who, he said, accompanied him to China, but he testified that his mother had frequently repeated these to him. Held, that the evidence was not sufficient to establish his citizenship.-(Quock Ting v. United States, 140 U. S., 417; 11 Sup. Ct., 733; 35 L. Ed., 501.)

[U. S., 1892.]

A person of Chinese parentage testified, on a hearing in habeas corpus proceedings to determine his right to come into the United States, that he was born in San Francisco in 1877, that he was taken to China by his parents when under 3 years of age, and remained there continuously until October, 1890. On the question of his birth he was corroborated only by the hearsay testimony of other Chinese persons, who had seen him but a few times. Held, that a finding against him should not be disturbed on appeal.-(Gee Fook Sing v. United States, 49 Fed., 146; I. C. C. A., 210; 7 U. S. App., 31. Lee Foo v. Same, id.; Lum Suey Cheong v. Same, id.; Toy Quong Teung v. Same, id.)

[U. S., 1884.]

2

The wife of a Chinese laborer is not entitled to enter the United 3 States on her husband's certificate, since the passage of the act of 1884, but must furnish the certificate required by section 6 of the act. (Case of the Chinese Wife, 21 Fed., 785.)

Upon the marriage of a Chinese woman, who was not before a laborer, to a Chinese laborer, she takes upon herself the status of the husband as one of the class who are not now permitted to enter the United States, without reference to her former status.-(Id.)

[U. S., 1883.]

A Chinese laborer, born on the island of Hongkong after its cession to Great Britain, is within the provisions of act of Congress, May 6, 1882, restricting the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United

4

5

1

2

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.]

3 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

5

6

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.]

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.)

[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.)