In re Tam Chung
| Decision Date | 29 May 1915 |
| Docket Number | 191. |
| Citation | 223 F. 801 |
| Parties | In re TAM CHUNG. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Application for writ of habeas corpus by Tam Chung for his release from the custody of an immigration inspector about to deport petitioner. Writ granted.
S. C Ford, of Helena, Mont., for petitioner.
B. K Wheeler, U.S. Atty., of Butte, Mont., and Homer G. Murphy Asst. U.S. Atty., of Helena, Mont., for the United States.
This petitioner for habeas corpus to an immigration inspector about to deport petitioner to China, his birthplace, is a Chinese boy of 17 years, who as a student was admitted to this country in August, 1912. The boy attended school in Washington for one year, then joined his uncle, a restaurant proprietor, in Montana. He immediately engaged an experienced teacher of Chinese, and for 17 months thereafter, and until arrested as hereinafter mentioned, for 1 1/2 hours every day save Sundays, he was instructed by and recited to her in various elementary studies. To preparation he devoted about three hours daily, and was a diligent student of good progress.
Living with his uncle, he occasionally helped about the restaurant, perhaps in return for board and lodging not otherwise paid. He was arrested and given a hearing before an immigration inspector, and thereon the Secretary of Labor ordered him deported, for that he had 'become a laborer since admission' and had no Chinese laborer's certificate of residence. In this the Secretary applied a rule made by him by virtue of a provision of Chinese Exclusion Act, Sec. 8, 25 Stat. 476, that he may make 'rules and regulations not in conflict with' the act, in which rule is prescribed that a student, within our treaty with China and our laws, amongst other things, is one for whose support 'adequate financial provision has been made or assured, and who, upon the conclusion of his studies, departs from the United States,' or on application to an immigrant officer has been granted the privilege of remaining and following some other exempt occupation, and until which no student 'shall be permitted to follow in the United States any other occupation than that of studying.'
Our treaty with China provides that Chinese students 'shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation.' 22 Stat. 826. The Chinese Exclusion Act provides for identification and admission of Chinese students, but neither therein nor in any other law has Congress repudiated the aforesaid treaty promise of this nation. Students of all other nations coming hither can of right follow any legitimate vocation contemporaneous with or after their studies are completed, thereto need the consent of no immigration officer, can remain here so long as they please, and cannot be deported because thereof. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rummel v. Peters
...A student does not lose his status as such merely because he earns money to help pay for his tuition or his living expenses. In re Tam Chung, D.C., 223 F. 801;United States v. Lau Chu, 2 Cir., 224 F. 446;Moy Kong Chiu v. United States, 7 Cir., 246 F. 94;United States v. Curran, 2 Cir., 15 F......
-
Rummel v. Peters
... ... though the student had a place of abode in Pennsylvania for ... the purpose of study. A student does not lose his status as ... such merely because he earns ... [314 Mass. 516] ... money to help pay for his tuition or his living expenses. In ... re Tam Chung, 223 F. 801. United States v. Lau Chu, 224 F ... 446. Moy Kong Chiu v. United States, 246 F. 94. United States ... v. Curran, 15 F.2d 266 ... The Appellate ... Division rested its decision in favor of the plaintiffs upon ... the provisions as to students already discussed. But ... ...
-
Ex parte Wong Yee Toon
....; Lew Ling Chong v. United States, 222 F. 195, . . . C.C.A. . . .; United States v. Yee Quong Yuen, 191 F. 28, 111 C.C.A. 500; In re Tam Chung (D.C.) 223 F. 801; United States v. Foo Duck (D.C.) 163 F. United States v. Foo Duck, 172 F. 856, 97 C.C.A. 204. It is true that the last above cit......
-
Moy Kong Chiu v. United States
...be deported because he temporarily engages in manual labor while attending school. See In re Tam Chung (D.C.) 223 F. 801, and cases cited at page 803. evidence produced by the government shows that appellant worked during a period of about 5 weeks. At the time of his arrest he stated that h......