United States v. Yee Yet

• Decision Date: 13 November 1911
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. YEE YET et al. UNITED STATES v. YEE KEE GUEY et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

192 F. 577

UNITED STATES v. YEE YET et al.

UNITED STATES v. YEE KEE GUEY et al.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

November 13, 1911

Walter H. Bacon, Asst. U.S. Dist. Atty.

Gilbert Collins, for demurrants.

CROSS District Judge.

The amended declarations in the above cases, which have been demurred to, are in all respects alike, except as to the name of the first or principal defendant, and the dates of the orders of deportation. The suits were instituted on bail bonds given by the respective defendants in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York. The declarations are complete in their recitals and allegations, and are not claimed to be defective in form. Briefly stated and treating them together, they show that the principal defendants in each case, being Chinese laborers were arrested for being in the United States contrary to the acts known as the 'Chinese Exclusion Acts'; that they were thereupon arrested and taken before a United States commissioner, who, after a hearing, held that they were unlawfully in the United States, and ordered them deported that an appeal was duly taken from his order to Judge Hazel of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, who, upon a hearing de novo, affirmed the orders of the commissioner and ordered them deported; that from the last-mentioned orders appeals were duly taken and allowed by Judge Hazel to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; that Judge Hazel, furthermore, upon the application of the respective appellants, did, by special orders, stay the orders of deportation made by him, and did admit the appellants to bail pending the hearing and determination of their appeals, which it is further alleged were subsequently heard by the Court of Appeals, and the judgments of the court below directing the deportation of the appellants affirmed; that the said appellants, however failed to appear when and as required by the conditions of their respective bonds, whereby the conditions thereof were broken.

The following specific grounds of demurrers are assigned in each case:

'(1) There was, at the date thereof, no authority in law for the taking of the supposed writing obligatory on which the declaration is founded.

'(2) Such supposed writing obligatory was without consideration and void.

'(3) The release of Yee Kee Guey from custody pending appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as recited in said declaration, was contrary to public policy as declared by the act of Congress entitled, 'An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States,' approved May 5, 1892 (27 Stat. L. p. 25), and the amendment thereto approved November 3, 1893 (28 Stat. L. p. 7); and said supposed writing obligatory was therefore void.

'(4) Said act of Congress amended as aforesaid provides that an order of deportation made thereon shall be executed by the United States marshal of the district within which such order is made, and that he shall execute same with all convenient dispatch; and that pending the execution of such order the Chinese person therein ordered to be deported shall remain in the custody of the United States marshal, and shall not be admitted to bail. The said supposed writing obligatory was in the nature of bail, and was therefore void.' An examination of the Chinese exclusion act and its amendments shows that there is no specific authority for

...