Chin Bak Kan v. United States
Decision Date | 02 June 1902 |
Docket Number | 525, 526 |
Citation | 186 U.S. 193,46 L.Ed. 1121,22 S. Ct. 891 |
Parties | <P><B><CENTER>CHIN BAK KAN, <I>Appt.</I>,</P> <P>v.</P> <P>UNITED STATES.</CENTER></B></P> |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
CHIN BAK KAN, Appt.,
v.
UNITED STATES.
Argued March 13, 14, 1902.
Decided june 2, 1902.
Complaint under oath was duly made before a commissioner of the United States for the northern district of New York, charging 'that Chin Bak Kan did, on or about the 13th day of March, 1901, at Burke in said district, knowingly and wrongfully come from Canada, in the province of Quebec, into the northern district of New York, to wit: into Burke in the county of Franklin and state of New York, in the United States, he, the said Chin Bak Kan being then and there a Chinese person and laborer, and a person prohibited by the laws of the United States of America from being and remaining in the United States, and he, the said Chin Bak Kan, then and there being such Chinese person as aforesaid, was then and there found unlawfully in the United States at Burke aforesaid, in violation of the acts of the Congress in such case made and provided.'
A warrant for the apprehension of Chin Bak Kan was issued March 13, 1901, and he was arrested and brought before the commissioner. He was informed of the charge against him, advised that he would be permitted to make a statement without or with oath, or to refuse to make any statement or to an- swer any question put to him, and was entitled to reasonable time to send for counsel and procure the attendance of witnesses. He pleaded not guilty to the charge, 'but admitted that he had just come into the United States.' He was thereafter represented by counsel. Subsequently a hearing and trial was commenced before the commissioner who issued the warrant. That officer having been taken sick, the hearing was continued and concluded before another commissioner, who found and adjudged upon the evidence as follows:
An appeal was prosecuted to the district court of the United States for the northern district of New York, but the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment for the deportation of the defendant was affirmed.
From the final order of the district court an appeal was then
Messrs. Max J. Kohler and B. Lewinson for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Hoyt and Solicitor General Richards for appellee.
By § 1 of the act of May 6, 1882 (22 Stat. at L. 58, chap. 126) it was provided that from and after the expiration of ninety days, and until the expiration of ten years, 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.
By § 4 provision was made for certificates to be granted to such Chinese as were entitled, under the treaty of November 17, 1880, to go from, or come to, the United States, of their free will and accord, in order to identify them.
The 12th section of the act was as follows:
This section was amended by the act of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. at L. 115, chap. 220), so as to read as follows:
By § 1 of the act of May 5, 1892 (27 Stat. at L. 25, chap. 60), it was provided: 'That all laws now in force prohibiting and regulating the coming into this country of Chinese persons and persons of Chinese descent are hereby continued in force for the period of ten years from the passage of this act.'
Sections 2, 3, and 6 were as follows:
'Should...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hof v. State
... ... Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 106 S.Ct. 477, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). It may be violated by the ... ...
-
Morrison v. People of State of California
...also was that the imposition of that burden did not deprive the alien of his constitutional immunities. Chin Bak Kan v. United States, 186 U.S. 193, 200, 22 S.Ct. 891, 894, 46 L.Ed. 1121. 'The inestimable heritage of citizenship is not to be conceded to those who seek to avail themselves of......
-
Ex parte Wong Yee Toon
...227 F. 247 Ex parte WONG YEE TOON. United States District Court, D. Maryland.November 6, 1915 ... Petition ... for habeas corpus ... Leo Won Tong (D.C.) 132 F. 190; United ... States v. Seid Bow (D.C.) 139 F. 56; In re Chin Ark ... Wing (D.C.) 115 F. 412; United States v. Lee ... Chee, 224 F. 447, ... C.C.A ... ; ... ...
- United States v. Broadhead