Moy Kong Chiu v. United States

• Decision Date: 02 October 1917
• Docket Number: 2425.
• Parties: MOY KONG CHIU v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

246 F. 94

MOY KONG CHIU v. UNITED STATES.

No. 2425.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

October 2, 1917

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.

This is an appeal from an order of deportation. The appellant, a Chinese person, arrived at the port of San Francisco in June 1912, then about 18 years of age. Having satisfied the immigration authorities that he was of the exempt classes namely, a student, he was duly admitted and the usual certificate of identity issued to him. In January, 1914, he was arrested in Chicago by an immigrant inspector, while engaged in manual labor in a laundry. A trial before a commissioner resulted in a finding that appellant was unlawfully in the United States, and an order of deportation. An appeal was taken to the District Court, where a trial de novo was had, on April 16, 1916.

To sustain the charge that appellant was unlawfully in this country, the government introduced evidence to the effect that after attending school in San Francisco for 4 or 5 months after his arrival, appellant was arrested, after he had been out of school about 3 weeks, on a charge of being a laborer; that he was discharged without trial upon promise being made that deportation would not be resisted if he was again found away from school and engaged in labor; that about 5 or 6 months later, in the summer of 1913, he came to Chicago, where, in January, 1914, he was arrested, while engaged in manual labor in the laundry of his father, Nie Pang; that he continued to work in the laundry for a month after his arrest; that at the time of his arrest he stated to the immigration authorities that his father was still in China and sent appellant such funds as he needed; that prior to making such sworn statement he told the inspector that he was born in San Francisco, and disowned the certificate of identity found in his possession. The government also introduced in evidence two letters, written by New Pang, at Chicago, which were received by appellant at San Francisco shortly before he came to Chicago, and were found in his possession at the time of his arrest. They read as follows:

'Yesterday I received your letter and noted what you say about coming to the city and that you have to have some one sign for you to go to school. I have consulted with Jung Quon and it cannot be done. The guarantor had stated to me recently that after two or three months in school one can come out and work independently and now they want some one to guarantee you come here to attend school. I have not even a dollar on hand; it is difficult for me to do. All the brothers knows that I cannot borrow even one dollar from any one. I always have some sickness. Although I have a mouth it is difficult for me to speak. If you consult with Yu Mun uncle and Wing as to what way so you can come out to work independently then write and inform me and have him write a letter in English guaranteeing that you come here to attend school. I did not (have you) come here to attend school but come to make money. If you come here without any paper or evidence you cannot be independent for the inspector will put his hand on you and look into the matter and it will make things difficult. The guarantor at Hong Kong will get back the money. Be sure to have things fixed in a safe way, get your certificate of identity. Jung Hoy and Jung Quon cannot do anything. From the time of Qwong Chiu's arrival I have not been in the state of tranquillity or happy even one day. I have been worrying about things every moment.'

'I will state that I received your letter and noted what you stated in the letter about coming to the city and that you have to sign up before you can come to the city and that you have to attend school. It is not the fact that you come to attend school. You are to come to work and make money. Up to the present date the guarantor order you to get bond to go to school. I have consulted with Jung Quon but it cannot be done. If it is settled get a certificate for evidence before you come to the city and if you cannot do any work it will be extremely difficult. I beg a thousand times that you consult with Mun Goong Wing uncle and do whatever he think the best. If Kwong Chon comes to the city be sure write to Yu Ngin uncle have him send you the railroad fare. I have already spoken to him about it and it can be done. If there is any hindrance after you come there the guaranteed money will have to be obtained at Hong Kong. I beg a thousand times that you have the matter settled safely before you come.'

At the conclusion of the evidence the District Court affirmed the order of deportation and remanded appellant to the custody of the marshal. Upon this judgment error is assigned, and also because of the admission and exclusion of evidence.

John Elliott Byrne, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Charles F. Clyne and Benjamin P. Epstein, both of Chicago, Ill., for the United States.

Before BAKER, KOHLSAAT, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

KOHLSAAT Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

Appellant was admitted to the United States upon a certificate issued to him in accordance with section 6 of the act of May 6, 1882 (22 Stat. 60), as amended by Act July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. 117) and by virtue of the provision of article 2 of the treaty between the United States and China concerning...