In re Yew Bing Hi

• Decision Date: 27 January 1904
• Docket Number: 1,533.
• Citation: 128 F. 319
• Parties: In re YEW BING HI.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

128 F. 319

In re YEW BING HI.

No. 1,533.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

January 27, 1904

William H. Garland, Asst. U.S. Atty.

John L Dyer, for defendant.

LOWELL District Judge.

The commissioner has found that the respondent entered the United States lawfully as a bona fide merchant in 1897, having a consular certificate issued in pursuance of section 6 of Act July 5, 1884, c. 220, 23 Stat. 116 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p 1307). As he saw and examined the witnesses, I accept this finding, and also his further finding that the respondent has since ceased to be a merchant. It seems that he was a merchant for some time after his arrival in the United States, but that he had ceased to be a merchant, and probably had become a laborer, months, if not years, before he was arrested. The question presented is one of law. Is a Chinaman, who has lawfully entered the country as a merchant and has lawfully practiced his calling here for some time thereafter, but who is not a merchant at the time of his arrest, subject to deportation under the treaties and statutes? Speaking generally, the Chinese exclusion acts are directed to prevent the unlawful coming of Chinese into the United States, and to remove those who have come in unlawfully. Through the Treaty of 1880, art. 1 (22 Stat 826), gives the United States the right to regulate, limit or suspend 'such coming or residence,' yet the acts of 1882 (Act May 6, 1882, c. 126, § 1, 22 Stat. 58 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 1305)) and 1884 affected only 'coming.' So the act of September, 1888 (Act Sept. 13, 1888, c. 1015, § 2, 25 Stat. 476 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 1312)), by its title, and the act of October, 1888 (Act Oct. 1, 1888, c. 1064, § 1, 25 Stat. 504 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 1318)), by its provisions, are limited in their prohibitions to Chinamen unlawfully coming into the United States. Section 1 of the latter forbids to remain in the United States only those Chinese laborers who shall have returned to the United States after the passage of the act. Thus far no indication appears that a Chinaman who has lawfully entered the United States may not change his occupation after entry without risk of deportation. The acts of 1892 (Act May 5, 1892, c. 60, § 6, 27 Stat. 25 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 1321)) and 1893 (Act Nov. 3, 1893, c. 14, § 1, 28 Stat. 7 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 1321)) by their titles prohibit only 'the coming of Chinese persons into the United States. ' It is true that section 6, both in its original and amended form, provides for the deportation of any Chinese laborer who shall be found within the United States without a certificate of registration; but in the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 725, 13 Sup.Ct. 1016, 37 L.Ed. 905, the court said that the act 'deals with two classes of Chinese persons: First, those 'not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States'; and, second, those 'entitled to be or remain in the United States.' These words of description neither confer nor take away any right;...