Toy Tong v. United States
Decision Date | 18 June 1906 |
Docket Number | 30. |
Citation | 146 F. 343 |
Parties | TOY TONG et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Max J Kohler, for appellants.
John B Vreeland, for appellee.
Before DALLAS and GRAY, Circuit Judges, and BRADFORD, District Judge.
This is an appeal from the judgments and orders of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, affirming orders made by United States Commissioner Russ, of Hoboken for the deportation to China of the four appellants. Though one complaint originally included all the defendants, the government conceded before the commissioner that they were entitled, on their demand, to separate trials, and the cases were tried separately, though much evidence common to all the cases was stipulated into the several records. In the District Court evidence common to all four cases was also taken on behalf of the government, though separate orders of deportation were entered, but for convenience on this appeal, the cases were thereafter consolidated on consent, as in the case of U.S. v. Mrs. Gue Lim, 176 U.S. 459, 20 Sup.Ct. 415, 44 L.Ed. 544.
The cases were brought under section 12 of the Act of July 5, 1884 (chapter 220, 23 Stat. 117, 1 Sup.Rev.St. pp. 460, 461 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 1310)), as in the case of U.S. v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 22 Sup.Ct. 629, 46 L.Ed. 878; but section 13 of the act of September 13, 1888 (chapter 1015, 25 Stat. 479, 2 Supp.Rev.St. p. 144 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 1317)) is also relied upon by the government, as conferring jurisdiction on the United States Commissioner. The complaint verified by Inspector Sisson on April 20, 1904, charges an unlawful entry into the United States by defendants without 'certificates entitling them to admission into the United States, as required by the Chinese exclusion acts and by law. ' The evidence adduced by the government tended to show that these defendants were in a railroad train in Canada, on April 15, 1904, with tickets reading 'from Hamilton to Wind Mill Point. ' They changed cars, according to this witness, at Caledonia, about 50 miles from the Niagara frontier, and the Chinese inspectors at Buffalo were duly warned to 'head them off.' On April 20, 1904, six men, claimed by the government to be the same, were arrested at Hoboken by Inspector Sisson, four of them being these appellants. Defendants offered no evidence before either the Commissioner or the District Court, other than what was brought out on cross-examination of the government witnesses and matters noticed judicially by the court at their request. From the order of deportation made by the commissioner in each case, appeal was taken to the District Court for the District of New Jersey, where the said orders of the commissioner were affirmed and orders issued by the District Court, directing the deportation of the respondents. With these orders of deportation, the following memorandum was filed by the learned judge of the District Court:
The provisions of the United States Chinese exclusion acts, brought under consideration, are the following:
Section 12 of the act of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. 117, c. 220 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1310)):
Section 13 of the act of September 13, 1888:
Section 3 of the act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1093, c. 845 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1328)):
The first point made by appellants' counsel, is that 'appellants should all be discharged for want of jurisdiction, because these causes were instituted by New York officers having no authority in New Jersey. ' The admitted facts are, that the complaint was sworn to before a United States Commissioner, at Hoboken, N.J., by Chinese Inspector Sisson, who is a resident in New York City, and is a deputy of F.W. Berkshire, whose official station and jurisdiction is stated by authority of the Commissioner of Commerce and Labor to be the state of New York. The contention is made that, inasmuch as section 3 of the act of March 3, 1901, provides that no arrests for violation of the Chinese exclusion laws shall be made, excepting upon the sworn complaint of certain designated officials, the warrant issued on the complaint of Chinese Inspector Sisson was void, for the reason that he was not authorized to act as such inspector outside of the state of New York. The same objection, of course, could be made had the complaint been sworn to by any of the officials named who were appointed such for a given territory or district, other than that in which the complaint was made.
The objection, however, is without merit, for the reason that the statute, in enumerating those who may make complaint, uses the official title as descriptio personae. The act of making a sworn complaint can ordinarily be performed by any person and the official character of the affiant adds nothing per se to its force and effect. Such a complaint, in the ordinary administration of criminal law, furnishes the ground for official action, but the affiant is not performing an official act. Section 3 of the act of March 3, 1901, takes away the authority theretofore resting in the commissioner, to issue a warrant of arrest upon the sworn complaint of any one who chooses to make it, and limits it to complaints made by certain persons holding office under the United States. A complaint made by a United States district attorney for the Southern District of New York, before a commissioner in the state of New Jersey, is still a complaint made by a United States district attorney. Such an act is not official, except that, holding such office, the commissioner is authorized to receive his sworn complaint in the premises. He has nothing to do, on account of such action, with the prosecution of the case, any more than would the private citizen who made such complaint before the passage of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
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 ... 522; ... In re Yew Bing Hi (D.C.) 128 F. 319; United ... States v. 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.) ... ...
-
Ng You Nuey v. United States
... ... court that he was born in the United States. ' And to the ... same effect, United States v. Hung Chang, 134 F. 19, ... 22, 23, 67 C.C.A. 93 (C.C.A. 6th Cir.); Bak Kun v. United ... States, 195 F. 53, 55, 115 C.C.A. 55 (C.C.A. 6th Cir.); ... United States v. Chin Tong, 192 F. 485, 487, 112 ... C.C.A. 647 (C.C.A. 5th Cir.); Toy Tong v. United ... States, 146 F. 343, 348, 76 C.C.A. 621 (C.C.A. 3d Cir.); ... Guan Lee v. United States, 198 F. 596, 598, 117 ... C.C.A. 304 (C.C.A. 7th Cir.); Yee Ging v. United States ... (D.C.) 190 F. 270, 271, 272; United States ... ...
-
Leo Lung On v. United States
... ... United States, ... 193 U.S. 65, 24 Sup.Ct. 357, 48 L.Ed. 619; Tom Hong v ... United States, 193 U.S. 517, 24 Sup.Ct. 517, 48 L.Ed ... 772; The United States, Petitioner, 194 U.S. 194, 24 Sup.Ct ... 629, 48 L.Ed. 931; Ark Foo v. United States, 63 ... C.C.A. 249, 128 F. 697; Toy Tong v. United States, ... 76 C.C.A. 621, 146 F. 343; Moy Suey v. United ... States, 78 C.C.A. 85, 147 F. 697; Lee Joe Yen v ... United States, 78 C.C.A. 427, 148 F. 682; Jung Yuen ... v. United States, 79 C.C.A. 534, 149 F. 1023. Moreover, ... the distinction between a writ of error and an appeal ... ...
-
United States v. Chin Ken
... ... Lung Hong (D.C.) 105 F. 188; ... United States v. Chun Hoy, 111 F. 899, 50 C.C.A. 57; ... United States v. Sing Lee (D.C.) 125 F. 627; Lee ... Yue v. United States, 133 F. 45, 66 C.C.A. 178; Low ... Foon Yin v. United States Immigration Com'r et al., ... 145 F. 791, 76 C.C.A. 355; Toy Tong v. United ... States, 146 F. 343, 76 C.C.A. 621; Lee Yuen Sue v ... United States, 146 F. 670, 77 C.C.A. 96; United ... States v. Hoy Way (D.C.) 156 F. 247; Ex parte Lung Wing ... Wun, 161 F. 211 ... No ... rights are gained by standing mute. United States v. Sing ... Tuck et al., ... ...