United States v. Pin Kwan

• Decision Date: 14 June 1899
• Citation: 94 F. 824
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. PIN KWAN.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

94 F. 824

UNITED STATES v. PIN KWAN.

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

June 14, 1899

Wesley C. Dudley, Asst. U.S. Atty.

Richard Crowley, for defendant.

COXE District Judge.

This case is devoid of trickery and fraud. The conduct of the defendant has been exemplary throughout. He has not entered the United States clandestinely; he has not deceived the officers of the government or withheld and information to which they are entitled. If there has been a failure to observe the strict letter of the law they, and not he, are responsible. He came to Buffalo October 27, 1897, with a certificate under section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. 115), signed by the registrar general and vised by the United States consul at Hong Kong. This certificate states the defendant's former and present occupation as 'assisted accountant.' It also states that he is a Chinese person other than a laborer and that he is 'going to Buffalo, N.Y., to join Quong Seng Lung & Co., 500 Michigan street, and attend to the business of the said company. ' On arrival at Buffalo he was examined by the collector and the inspector of immigration located at that port. His papers were found sufficient in every particular, his identification was complete and he was duly admitted into the United States the collector certifying over his own signature to that effect. The United States inspector of immigration, Mr. De Barry, testifies as follows:

'I know Pin Kwan, the defendant; I admitted him in the United States on October 27, 1897, and have known him since that time. I have frequently seen defendant at both of the stores (Nos. 494 and 500 Michigan street) selling goods and keeping accounts; I have never seen him doing anything else.'

On the 17th of March, 1899, the defendant was arrested and brought before a United States commissioner. During the interval he has lived an industrious life, attending to the business of the firm at its stores on Michigan street, keeping its books and selling its goods. He has done nothing else. The business consists of general merchandise, such as wines, liquors tobacco, medicine, clothing shoes, soaps, etc. The defendant on coming here acquired an interest in the business and still holds it. All of these facts are undisputed.

Here then, is the case of a man who, armed with a passport, signed by the duly authorized agents of the United States in China, has left his native land and journeyed 10,000 miles to engage in business in this country. Upon his arrival his credentials are carefully scrutinized by two agents of the United States and his right to enter this country is unhesitatingly confirmed. Upon the faith of this permit he invests his money here and devotes his entire time to mercantile pursuits. After nearly 18 months he is arrested, and it is proposed to send him back to China because of alleged defects in his entrance certificate, due not to any fault of his but to the carelessness of the agents of the United States. Before sanctioning this proceeding the court should be very sure of the rectitude of its position. The commissioner felt constrained to follow certain rulings of the executive officers of the government, placing a strict construction upon section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884, but, evidently, he reached this conclusion with reluctance and regret for he says:

'I am compelled to render a judgment against the defendant, but in fair dealing the decision in this case ought to be otherwise.'

The court is in entire accord with the conclusion that good faith and fair dealing require that the defendant should be discharged. If it be possible for the United States to bind itself by the acts of its agents this controversy presents such a case. To repudiate this action now, after the defendant in reliance thereon has invested his money here borders very closely upon bad faith. The entire volume of Chinese litigation is directed against Chinese laborers. No one can read the treaties, the debates in congress and the statutes which have, from time to time, been enacted upon this subject without being impressed with this fact. It was the object of the lawmakers to prevent the degraded and cheap labor of the East from coming in contact with the intelligent and highclass labor of this country. It was not their intention to exclude those who come here to invest their money in mercantile pursuits and thus add to the commerce and prosperity of the country. In dealing with these cases it has been the...