United States v. Lee Yen Tai
Decision Date | 21 April 1902 |
Docket Number | No. 503,503 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, Appt. , v. LEE YEN TAI |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Assistant Attorney General Hoyt for appellant.
Messrs. Max J. Kohler and B. Lewinson for appellee.
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- 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 6th 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.'
By the preamble of the act of May 6th, 1882, chap. 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 17th, 1880 (22 Stat. at L. 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 12th section of the above act was as follows:
By the act of July 5th, 1884, chap. 220, the 12th section of the above act of May 6th, 1882, was amended so as to read as follows:
Subsequently, by the act of May 5th, 1892, Chap. 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. at L. 25, § 1.
The question certified to us is whether the 12th section of the act of 1882, amended and continued in force as above stated, was abrogated by the treaty with China proclaimed December 8th, 1894. 28 Stat. at L. 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 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 co-operate 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. . . .
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Itzcovitz v. SELECTIVE SERVICE LOCAL BOARD NUMBER 6, NY
...288 U.S. 102, 53 S.Ct. 305 (1933); Johnson v. Browne, 205 U.S. 309, 27 S.Ct. 539, 51 L.Ed. 816 (1907); United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 22 S.Ct. 629, 46 L.Ed. 878 (1902); Ungo v. Beechie, 311 F.2d 905 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 1301, 10 L.Ed.2d 413 (1963). C......
-
Pillsbury Co. v. U.S.
...[is] necessary to evidence an intent to abrogate provisions in 13 international agreements"), United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 221, 22 S.Ct. 629, 46 L.Ed. 878 (1902) ("the purpose by statute to abrogate a treaty or any designated part of a treaty ... must not be lightly assumed, ......
-
State v. Tinno
...41 L.Ed. 244 (1896).5 See Tulee v. State of Washington, and United States v. Winans, supra note 2. Cf. United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 22 S.Ct. 629, 46 L.Ed. 878 (1902); Cook v. United States, 288 U.S. 102, 53 S.Ct. 305, 77 L.Ed. 641 (1933); 7 Idaho L.Rev. 49, 59-61 (1970).6 U.S......
-
Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran
...U.S. at 252, 104 S.Ct. 1776, and is reflected in Supreme Court precedent of long-standing. See, e.g., United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 221, 22 S.Ct. 629, 46 L.Ed. 878 (1902) ("the purpose by statute to abrogate a treaty or any designated part of a treaty ... must not be lightly a......
-
TREATY OVERRIDE: THE FALSE CONFLICT BETWEEN WHITNEY AND COOK.
...so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either...."); see also United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 221-23 (1902); McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10, 20-21 (1963); Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 31 (198......
-
CONGRESSIONAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION.
...to avoid the implied repeal of earlier statutes. See, e.g., Johnson v. Browne, 205 U.S. 309, 321 (1907); United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 222 (1902); Blanco v. United States, 775 F.2d 53, 61 (2d Cir. 1985); see also Curtis A. Bradley, The Charming Betsy Canon and Separation of Po......
-
Can Congress overturn Kennedy v. Louisiana?
...changes in national mood). (67.) See U.S. CONST. art. I, [section] 7; see also U.S. CONST. art. V. (68.) See United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 222 (1902) ("A statute enacted by Congress expresses the will of the people of the United States in the most solemn (69.) See Roderick M. ......
-
Establishing substantial authority for undisclosed tax positions.
...method the organization uses to develop and present its views is educational. (27) Rev. Proc. 86-43, 1986-2 C.B. 729. (28) Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213 (29) Snap-on Tools, Inc., 26 Cl. Ct. 1045 (1992). (30) Elliotts, Inc., 716 F.2d 1241 (9th Cir. 1983). (31) Dexsil Corp., 147 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. ......