United States v. Louie Lee
| Decision Date | 01 February 1911 |
| Docket Number | 1,160. |
| Citation | 184 F. 651 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. LOUIE LEE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Casey Todd, U.S. Dist. Atty.
C. G Bond and Frank S. Elgin, for defendant.
On the 30th day of November, 1910, S. L. Whitfield, a United States Chinese inspector, made a complaint in writing under oath before A. G. Mathews, United States commissioner, that one Louie Lee, yeoman, of Madison county, Tenn., and within this district, on the 30th day of November, 1910, 'being a Chinese laborer, was found unlawfully in the United States without a certificate of registration, under the act of May 5, A.D. 1892 (Act May 5, 1892, c. 60, Sec. 6, 27 Stat. 25) as amended by the act of November 3, A.D. 1893 (Act Nov. 3 1893, c. 14, Sec. 1, 28 Stat. 7 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p 1320)), wherefore, and for the cause mentioned in said information,' it is prayed that 'said Louie Lee, being unlawfully within the United States, be deported from the United States to the place from which he came.'
On the same day, the United States commissioner issued a warrant, directed to the marshal of the Western district of Tennessee, commanding him to apprehend the said Louie Lee, and forthwith bring his body before the said commissioner, or some other commissioner, to answer the charge and be dealt with as the law directs in such cases.
Indorsed upon the warrant is the following:
On the 3d day of December, 1910, the said Louie Lee prayed an appeal, from the judgment of the commissioner, to the judge of the United States District Court from said judgment of deportation, 'to the end that said judgment may be annulled and vacated, and your petitioner may be restored to his rights and liberties as provided by law, and asks the honorable commissioner to grant said appeal. ' The appeal was granted on the same day.
The effect of this appeal was to suspend the judgment of the United States commissioner, and the case is before me to be heard de novo.
If any evidence was introduced before the commissioner, the same was not certified to this court. On the other hand, it was agreed in open court that no evidence of any character was offered or heard before the commissioner.
When the case was called to be heard in this court, the following occurred, in substance: The district attorney stated that a warrant was issued, charging that Louie Lee was a Chinese laborer, and being unlawfully within the United States. After reading the affidavit on which the warrant of arrest was based, he stated that he had no other evidence to offer, unless it should become necessary to offer evidence in rebuttal, after the defendant had closed his proof. Thereupon counsel for the defendant moved the court to discharge the defendant, upon the ground that there was no evidence introduced by the government to support the charge made in the warrant to the effect that the defendant was a Chinese person.
The district attorney contended that the act of Congress under which the proceeding was brought only required of the government to cause the alleged Chinese person to be arrested and brought before the court, and that the burden is upon such person to show that he is lawfully within the United States, and that, if the defendant introduced no evidence, that a judgment of deportation should be pronounced by the court.
Upon the other hand, the defendant's counsel contended that the burden was upon the government to prove that the defendant was a Chinese person, and then the burden shifted to the defendant, in order to avoid a judgment of deportation, to show that he was lawfully here.
Section 3 of the act of May 5, 1892, provides:
'That any Chinese person, or persons of Chinese descent, arrested under the provisions of this act, or the acts hereby extended, shall be adjudged to be unlawfully within the United States, unless the person shall establish by affirmative proof, to the satisfaction of such justice, judge or commissioner, his lawful right to remain in the United States.'
Section 6 of said act, as amended by the act of November 3, 1893, provides that all Chinese laborers within the limits of the United States, who are entitled to remain in the United States before the passage of the act, shall apply to the collector of internal revenue for a certificate of residence--
'and any Chinese laborer within the limits of the United States who shall neglect, fail or refuse to comply with the provisions of this act, and the act to which this is an amendment, or who, after the expiration of said six months, shall be found within the jurisdiction of the United States, without such certificate or residence, shall be deemed and adjudged to be unlawfully within the United States, and may be arrested by any * * * United States * * * marshal, or his deputies, and taken before a United States judge, whose duty it shall be to order that he be deported from the United States, * * * unless he shall establish clearly to the satisfaction of such judge that by reason of accident, sickness or other unavoidable cause, he had been unable to procure his certificate, and to the satisfaction of said United States judge, and by at least one credible witness other than Chinese that he was a resident of the United States on the fifth of May, 1892, and if, upon the hearing, it shall appear that he is so entitled to a certificate, it shall be granted, upon his paying the costs.'
The only question for decision now is whether or not the burden is with the government to first prove to the satisfaction of the court that the accused is a Chinese person, before it is necessary that he shall be required to offer evidence tending to show that he is lawfully within the United States.
Under the acts of Congress and the decisions of the courts, it is clearly the duty of this court, when...
To continue reading
Request your trial