United States v. Yee Quong Yuen

• Decision Date: 27 October 1911
• Docket Number: 3,496.
• Citation: 191 F. 28
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. YEE QUONG YUEN.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

191 F. 28

UNITED STATES v. YEE QUONG YUEN.

No. 3,496.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

October 27, 1911

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.

Ralph Hartzell, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Thomas Ward, Jr., U.S. Atty., on the brief), for the United States.

Before ADAMS and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and REED, District Judge.

ADAMS Circuit Judge.

This was an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado discharging Yee Quong Yuen from imprisonment in the jail of the city and county of Denver to which he had been committed by the United States commissioner on a complaint that he was a Chinese laborer unlawfully within the United States. This boy was the natural son of a brother of Yee Ling Wing, and when only two months old was, in conformity to the laws and practices prevailing in China, duly adopted by the latter as his own son. He thereby, as is conceded by government's counsel, acquired all the rights and privileges of a natural son of his adoptive parent. The latter had resided in this country for many years, and had for some time been engaged in business as a merchant in Salt Lake City; but in 1908, upon being advised of the death of his wife, who had continued to reside in China with his adopted son, returned there, and soon after married another wife, and with her and the son, who was still a minor, returned to this country, landing at Seattle. He had the proper certificate of identification of himself as a merchant returning to the United States with his wife and minor son. They went forthwith to Salt Lake City, where the husband and father kept a Chinese provision store. Certain representations were made to him by a relative in Denver by the name of Yee Dot Toy to the effect that a dry goods business belonging to one Sue Ho Hong could be advantageously purchased and that he would join Wing in purchasing it for his son and himself. Negotiations followed and resulted in a purchase, and Yee Dot Toy and Yee Quong Yuen commenced business there. It soon proved to have been a bad trade, and after losing some $200 the business was disposed of, and the boy, being without a home in Denver went to a laundry, where he worked awhile for his board waiting, as he and his father both testified, until some mercantile business of better promise than before could be found for him. While so waiting he was found by an immigration inspector and arrested. The boy's testimony was that his sole purpose in coming to this country was to engage in some mercantile pursuit, as his father had done and this was corroborated by his father's testimony and by other circumstances.

On this state of facts the learned trial judge discharged the prisoner. This we think was right. He was a minor son of a Chinese merchant doing business in the United States, who had journeyed to China for a temporary purpose, but with the intention of returning. Upon his return he had a right to bring in his wife and minor children without the production of any certificate required by the sixth section of the act of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. 115, c. 220 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1305)). The enjoyment of their society and the duty to care for and protect them were his by natural right and obligation. In the case of Chung Toy Ho (C.C.) 42 F. 398, 9 L.R.A. 204, it was said:

'It ought not to be lightly, or without cogent reason, concluded that Congress, in the passage of the act of 1884, professedly 'to execute' the treaty of 1880, really intended to limit or restrain its operation in this respect. The treaty (article 2 (22 Stat. 827)) declares that a Chinese merchant may bring his 'body and household servants' with him into the country, and they 'shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation.' * * * The domicile of the wife and children is that of the husband, * * * and the concession to the merchant of the right to enter the United

...