United States v. Moy Nom
| Decision Date | 02 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | 98. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MOY NOM. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
At Law. Proceeding by the United States for the deportation of Moy Nom and others, Chinese persons. From an order of deportation of a United States commissioner, defendant Moy Nom appeals. Order reversed, and defendant discharged.
The defendant Moy Nom, a Chinese person, appeals from an order of a United States commissioner directing that he be deported to China. The defendant was arrested upon an information filed before United States Commissioner Harwood, of this district by an immigrant and Chinese inspector, which charged "that on or about March 16, 1917, the defendant Moy Nom (and two other Chinese persons, naming them) did unlawfully enter the United States at Cedar Rapids, Linn county, in this district, and were found laboring therein without certificates of residence, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided," etc. Upon a hearing before the commissioner the defendant was ordered deported to China, and the other two defendants discharged and defendant brings this appeal to reverse such order as against him.
The minor son of a Chinese merchant, who was entitled to remain in the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act without registration, during his minority at least, is one of the exempted class.
Where the minor son of a Chinese merchant, who was lawfully in the United States, by reason of the status of his father, acquired by gift or purchase an interest in a mercantile business, such minor is, after reaching his majority, entitled to remain in the United States, notwithstanding his father's return to China.
Where defendant's status as a Chinese merchant was established before he went to China for a visit, the fact that after his return and admission into the United States he worked as a laborer for part of the time does not of itself forfeit his right to remain in the United States as one of the exempted class.
Where a Chinese person, before returning to China for a visit, presented himself to the Bureau of Immigration for preinvestigation as to his status as a merchant, and the Bureau found that he had for the required time been engaged as a merchant and gave him a certificate, the government is, after his return from China, estopped from questioning his status as a merchant, where there was no competent proof of fraud on his part in obtaining re-entry into the United States.
E.A. Fordyce, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and F.T. Milchrist, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
F.A. O'Connor, U.S. Atty., of New Hampton, Iowa, and Charles A. Lich, of St. Louis, Mo., representing the Bureau of Immigration, for the United States.
REED, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The testimony before the commissioner shows without dispute that the appellant was born in China, and when 12 or 13 years old came to this country in about 1890 with his father, who then, or shortly thereafter, settled in Chicago, and engaged in business as a member of the mercantile company known as Hip Lung Ying Kee & Co., selling groceries and Chinese goods at No. 515 South Clark street, in that city. The father continued as a member of that company for some years, and then returned to China. When he returned to China, he arranged to sell an interest in this company to his son, the appellant, and the son then, or soon after, became a member of the company, and engaged in its business as such member, and continued therein until January, 1912, when he returned to China, remaining there some 18 or 20 months, then returned to Chicago, and again joined Hip Lung Ying Kee & Co. as a member thereof, and assisted in carrying on its business for a couple or more years. The appellant testified upon the hearing before the commissioner in his own behalf, and though his testimony is disconnected, and in some respects inconsistent, the foregoing is a substantially correct statement of his connection with Hip Lung Ying Kee & Co. in Chicago, and there is nothing to contradict it, unless it be the inconsistency in his statements as to the time and place of work in Chicago, and his connection with the Hip Lung Company.
The appellant on December 6, 1911, applied to the Immigration Bureau, then in the Department of Commerce and Labor, at Chicago, for preinvestigation of status, upon form No. 431 of that bureau, in which he named two white persons, among others, who could testify of their own knowledge that he was a merchant in Chicago. Upon completion of the examination under this application, the inspector in charge at Chicago on January 12, 1912, found and reported as follows:
This finding was duly forwarded to the Commissioner of Immigration at the port of Seattle, Wash., accompanied by triplicate thereof, transcripts of the testimony, and report in accordance with rule 15. On presentation of this certificate to the Commissioner of Immigration at Seattle, Wash., the appellant was given an identification certificate and he took passage upon a steamship for China, where he went, and returned therefrom in August, 1913. Upon his return he was examined by the Immigration Bureau at Seattle, and given a certificate of identity (which is No. 12676, marked Exhibit A, and attached hereto), and was permitted to re-enter the United States as a returning merchant, and he did so re-enter the United States about the 26th of August, 1913, returned to Chicago, where he again assumed his relations with Hip Lung Ying Kee & Co., and remained with that company as one of its members for something more than a year; but, the business of the company being dull, he obtained employment outside of that company, and assisted in working in some restaurants and laundries. About two years before his arrest he went to Iowa City, and there engaged in the laundry business, where he was discovered by the inspector, who filed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial