Li Sing v. United States

Decision Date18 March 1901
Docket NumberNo. 27,27
Citation45 L.Ed. 634,180 U.S. 486,21 S.Ct. 449
PartiesLI SING, Petitioner , v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

In June, 1893, Li Sing a native of China, but then a resident 487 of Newark, New Jersey, returned to China and took with him a certificate purporting to have been issued by the imperial government of China, at its consulate at New York, and signed by its consul, that he was permitted to return to the United States and was entitled to do so, and which, furthermore, styled him a wholesale grocer. This certificate was vised in Hong Kong by the United States consul on June 27, 1896, when Li Sing was about to return to this country. He thereafter returned by the way of Canada, presented the certificate to the United States collector of customs at Malone, New York, who canceled it on August 28, 1896, and permitted him to enter the country.

On January 6, 1897, the United States officer, who is called the United States inspector for the port of New York, represented in writing and under oath to John A. Shields, United States commissioner for the southern district of New York, that Li Sing had unlawfully entered the United States. was unlawfully within that district, and that he was and had been for many years a Chinese laborer. Whereupon he was brought before the commissioner for examination. It was claimed by the counsel for Li Sing before the commissioner that by the action of the collector of customs at Malone the question of the Chinaman's right to be and remain in this country was res judicata, and also that he was a merchant. Testimony as to his status as a merchant was given by Chinese witnesses exclusively, which was received by the commissioner, notwithstanding the objection of the attorney of the United States. The commissioner found, upon all the evidence, that Li Sing was, at the time of the examination, a Chinese laborer, that he was such at the time he departed for China, and for several years prior thereto, and was such after his return from China in August, 1896.

The commissioner ordered his deportation, but did not order imprisonment as a punishment or penalty. A writ of habeas corpus and a writ of certiorari were thereupon allowed by the circuit court for the southern district of New York upon Li Sing's petition. After a hearing the writ of habeas corpus was dismissed, and the relator was remanded to the custody of the United States marshal for deportation. An appeal was then taken by the relator from the order of the circuit court to the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit, and, on April 7, 1898, that court affirmed the order of the circuit court.

A writ of certiorari was thereafter, on February 1, 1899, allowed by this court.

Mr. W. C. Beecher for petitioner.

Messrs. Assistant Attorney General Hoyt, Attorney General Griggs, Solicitor General Richards, and Henry L. Burnett for respondent.

Mr. Justice Shiras delivered the opinion of the court:

The first contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the collector of customs at Malone had exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the right of petitioner to enter the country; that any error committed by the collector could only be reviewed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and that, consequently, the commissioner had no jurisdiction to act in the present case.

This contention is based upon the provisions of § 12 of the act of September 13, 1888 (25 Stat. at L. 476, chap. 1015), as follows: 'And the collector shall in person decide all questions in dispute, . . . and his decision shall be subject to review by the Secretary of the Treasury, and not otherwise.'

Doubtless, if this section had gone into effect and had continued to be in effect until August 27, 1896, when the collector at Malone acted in the matter, his decision would have been final as to the questions passed on by him. But the act of September 13, 1888, was passed to take effect upon the ratification of a treaty then pending between the United States and the Emperor of China, and it is conceded that such treaty never was ratified.

Thereupon, the treaty not having been ratified, the act of October 1, 1888 (25 Stat. at L. 504, chap. 1064), was passed, which declared that from and after its passage it should be unlawful for any Chinese laborer, who at any time before had been, or was then or might thereafter be, a resident within the United States, and who departed or might depart therefrom, and should not have returned before its passage, to return to or to remain in the United States, and that no certificates of identity, under which by the act of May 6, 1882, Chinese laborers departing from the country were allowed to return, should thereafter be issued, and it annulled every certificate of the king which had been previously issued, and provided that no Chinese laborer should be permitted to enter the United States by virtue of any such certificate.

The effect of this act was considered by this court in the case of Wan Shing v. United States, 140 U. S. 424, 35 L. ed. 503, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, decided May 11, 1891. In the opinion in that case the act of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. at L. 115, chap. 220), was cited as still in force, which provided that any certificate given by the Chinese government, and vised by the indorsement of the diplomatic or consular representative of the United States in China, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts set forth therein, and shall be produced to the collector of customs of the port in the district of the United States, at which the person named therein shall arrive, and after produced to the proper authorities of the United States whenever lawfully demanded, and shall be the sole evidence permissible on the part of the person so producing the same to establish a right of entry into the United States; but said certificate might be controverted and the facts therein stated disproved by the United States authorities.

In summing up a review of the existing acts of Congress the court in that case, through Mr. Justice Field, said:

'The result of the legislation respecting the Chinese would seem to be this,—that no laborers of that race shall hereafter be permitted to enter the United States, or even to return after having departed from the country, though they may have previously resided therein and have left with a view of returning.'

The counsel for the petitioner cite cases in some of the circuit courts of the United States in which it has been held that some of the provisions of the act of September 13, 1888, notwithstanding the treaty was not ratified, could be regarded as in force.

Without finding it necessary to say that there are no provisions in the act of September 13, 1888, which, from their nature, are binding on the courts, as existing statements of the legislative will, we are ready to hold that § 12 of that act cannot be so regarded. In the act of August 18, 1894 (28 Stat. at L. 390, chap. 301), it was provided that 'in every case where an alien is excluded from admission into the United States under any law or treaty now existing or hereafter made, the decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officers, if adverse to the admission of such alien, shall be final, unless reversed on appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury.'

And in the case of Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538, 547, 39 L. ed. 1082, 1085, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 967, it was held, expounding the act of August 18, 1894, that the decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officers, excluding an alien from admission into the United States under any law or treaty, is made final in every case, unless, on appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury, it be reversed. But it is obvious that it is only when the decision of the customs officer excludes an alien from admission that his decision is final. When his decision admits the alien, then the provisions of the act of July 5, 1884, are still applicable, which provide that, notwithstanding the contents of the certificate exhibited to the collector of customs, and their prima facie effect, 'such certificate may be controverted and the facts therein stated disproved by the United States authorities.'

Accordingly, we agree with the courts below in holding that the judgment of the collector of customs at Malone did not conclude the commissioner, and that the latter had authority, under the statutes, to hear and determine the question whether Li Sing was entitled to remain within the limits of the United States.

The decision of the collector of customs not being conclusive as to the right of the petitioner to enter the United States, much less as to his right to remain therein, we are brought to consider the errors assigned to the acts of the commissioner in the proceedings before him.

Those proceedings were instituted under § 12 of the act of May 6, 1882, as amended by the act of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. at L. 115, chap. 220), which provides that 'no Chinese person...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Virginia & West Virginia Coal Co. v. Charles
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • July 14, 1917
    ... 251 F. 83 VIRGINIA & WEST VIRGINIA COAL CO. v. CHARLES. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia. July 14, 1917 . [251 F. 84] . [Copyrighted Material ... Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 729, 13 Sup.Ct. 1016, 37 L.Ed. 905; Li Sing v. United States, 180. U.S. 486, 493, 21 Sup.Ct. 449, 45 L.Ed. 634; Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U.S. ......
  • Lopez-Mendoza v. INS, 79-7673
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 25, 1983
    ...States, 149 U.S. 698, 730-31, 13 S.Ct. 1016, 1028-29, 37 L.Ed. 905 (1893) (emphasis added); accord Li Sing v. United States, 180 U.S. 486, 495, 21 S.Ct. 449, 453, 45 L.Ed. 634 (1901). The majority has neither cited nor discussed this clear pronouncement from our highest Court that the provi......
  • Harisiades v. Shaughnessy Mascitti v. Grath Coleman v. Grath
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1952
    ...905; Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538, 545—546, 15 S.Ct. 967, 969—970, 39 L.Ed. 1082; Li Sing v. United States, 180 U.S. 486, 494—495, 21 S.Ct. 449, 452, 453, 45 L.Ed. 634; Fok Yung Yo v. United States, 185 U.S. 296, 302, 22 S.Ct. 686, 688, 46 L.Ed. 917; Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher......
  • Henderson v. I.N.S.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • September 18, 1998
    ...Circuit, see United States v. Gee Lee, 50 F. 271, 273 (9th Cir.1892), and ultimately by the Supreme Court, see Li Sing v. United States, 180 U.S. 486, 488-90, 21 S.Ct. 449, 45 L.Ed. 634 (1901). Accordingly, judicial review of immigration decisions continued Shortly after the passage of the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • THE IMAGINARY IMMIGRATION CLAUSE.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 No. 7, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...But Congress did not, at first, appropriate funds toward arrests or deportations away from ports of entry. See Li Sing v. United States, 180 U.S. 486, 488 (1901); Charles Foster, Circular--Exclusion of Chinese, in 1 Synopsis of the Decisions of the Treasury Department and Board of U.S. Gene......
  • A Personal Account of a Week Inside an Immigration Family Detention Center
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association The California International Law Journal (CLA) No. 24-2, December 2016
    • Invalid date
    ...note 1.25. INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 594 (1952); Li Sing v. United States, 180 U.S. 486 (1901).26. Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2005); Leslie v. Att'y Gen., 611 F.3d 171 (3d Cir. 2010); Dakane v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 399 F......
  • STATUS MANIPULATION IN CHAE CHAN PING V. UNITED STATES.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 121 No. 6, April 2023
    • April 1, 2023
    ...States, 149 U.S. 698, 705-07, 723, 730 (1893); Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538, 541-42 (1895); Li Sing v. United States, 180 U.S. 486, 494 (16.) 430 U.S. 787, 788-90 (1977). (17.) Id. at 792 (quoting Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953)). (18.) Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT