Ex parte Woo Shing
| Decision Date | 16 September 1915 |
| Docket Number | 9165. |
| Parties | Ex parte WOO SHING. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Marvin & Marvin, of Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner.
E. S Wertz, U.S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, opposed.
This proceeding brings up for consideration a writ of habeas corpus issued upon the application of Woo Shing, a Chinese person, claiming that he is unlawfully deprived of his liberty by a government inspector in charge of the immigration department of the Cleveland, Ohio district.
The petitioner was arrested on the 16th day of November, 1914, by virtue of a warrant issued by the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and such proceedings were had thereafter that on the 13th day of August, 1915, a warrant was issued by J. B Densmore, Acting Secretary of Labor, commanding that the applicant be deported to China, his native country.
It is not necessary to consider the decisions limiting the authority of this court to deal with such decisions of the Secretary of Labor; but, notwithstanding the limited authority which the court has in this respect, I have gone carefully over the testimony, and am very clear that the finding by the inspector and the decision of the Secretary are both abundantly justified by the evidence.
The charge in the warrant for the arrest of the applicant is that he is subject to deportation under the provisions of the laws of the United States, to wit, the Chinese Exclusion Law, for the following, among other, reasons:
'That he has been found within the United States in violation of section 2 of the Chinese Exclusion Act of November 3, 1893, having secured admission by fraud, not having been at time of entry a lawfully domiciled exempt returning to resume a lawfully acquired domicile and to follow an exempt pursuit in this country; that he re-entered the United States in violation of section 7, Chinese Exclusion Act of September 13, 1888, being a Chinese laborer who failed to produce to the proper officer the return certificate required by said section; and that he has been found within the United States in violation of section 6, Chinese Exclusion Act of May 5, 1892, as amended by the act of November 3, 1893, being a Chinese laborer not in possession of a certificate of residence.'
The order of deportation recites that the grounds stated in the warrant are the ones upon which the order is based, and that the order itself was issued under authority of section 21 of the Immigration Act approved February 20, 1907. The hearing was had before an inspector of the Department of Labor, and the order of deportation was issued by the Acting Secretary of Labor.
The Chinese Exclusion Law provides (Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 4313) that Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent found unlawfully within the United States may be arrested upon a complaint made as provided, upon a warrant issued, 'by any justice, judge, or commissioner, of any United States court, returnable before such justice, judge or commissioner of a United States court,' and a certified copy of the judgment rendered by such an authority shall be the process upon which the alien shall be removed from the United States.
In this state of the record and of the law the claim is made that this writ of habeas corpus should be sustained because the charge in the warrant for the arrest of the alien and the order for his deportation are based wholly upon a violation of the Chinese Exclusion Act, and therefore can lawfully be issued only by a justice, judge, or commissioner of the United States, whereas in this case the alien was arrested upon a warrant issued...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hubbard v. Lowe
-
Wong Sun v. Fluckey
...of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Woo Jan, 245 U.S. 552, 38 Sup.Ct. 207, 62 L.Ed. 466, overruling Ex parte Woo Shing (N.D. Ohio) 226 F. 141. A warrant was issued under section 19, General Immigration Act February 5, 1917 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Sec. ......
-
Ex parte Woo Jan
... ... U.S. ex rel. Yee ... Yok Yee (C.C.A.) 227 F. 15; by Judge Dooling in the case ... of Ex parte Woi San, 229 F ... , in which he receded from ... the position he took in the case of Ex parte Wong Tuey Hing ... (D.C.) 213 F. 113; and by Judge Clarke in the case of Ex ... parte Woo Shing, 226 F. 141, which I understand is now ... pending in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 229 F ... C.C.A ... In none of these cases was the question fully ... developed, as the judges seemed to think that it was settled ... by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Wong You Case, ... ...
-
Lee Wong Hin v. Mayo
...cases are to the contrary: Ex parte Lam Pui (D.C.) 271 F. 457; Sibray v. United States, 227 F. 1, 141 C.C.A. 555; and Ex parte Woo Shing (D.C.) 226 F. 141. But in each case of United States v. Wong You, 223 U.S. 67, 32 Sup.Ct. 195, 56 L.Ed. 354, was held to be controlling, and we think it o......