A Chinese laborer who resided in the United States on November
17th, 1880, continued to reside there till October 24th, 1883, when
he left San Francisco for China, taking with him a certificate of
identification issued to him by the collector of that port, in the
form required by the 4th section of the Act of May 6, 1852, c. 126,
22 Stat. 68, which was stolen from him in China, and remained
outstanding and uncancelled. Returning from China to San Francisco
by a vessel, he was not allowed by the collector to land for want
of the certificate, and was detained in custody in the port by the
master of the vessel by direction of the customs authorities. On a
writ of habeas corpus, issued by the district court of the United
States, it appeared that he corresponded in all respects with the
description contained in the registration books of the custom house
of the person to whom the certificate was issued. He was discharged
from custody, and the order of discharge was affirmed by the
circuit court.
On appeal to this Court, by the United States,
held:
Page 124 U. S. 622
(1) He was in custody under or by color of the authority of the
United States, and the district court had jurisdiction to issue the
writ.
(2) The jurisdiction of the court was not affected by the fact
that the collector had passed on the question of allowing the
person to land, or by the fact that the treaty provides for
diplomatic action in a case of hardship.
(3) The case of the petitioner was not to be adjudicated under
the provisions of the Act of July 5, 1884, c. 220, 23 Stat. 115,
where they differed from those of the act of 1882.
(4) In view of the provisions of § 4 of the act of 1882, in
regard to a Chinese laborer arriving by sea, as distinguished from
those of § 12 of the same act in regard to one arriving by land,
the district court was authorized to receive the evidence it did in
regard to the identity of the petitioner, and, on the facts it
found, to discharge him from custody.
This was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court below
ordered the discharge of the prisoner, from which judgment the
United States appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the
Court.
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal by the United States from a judgment of the
Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California,
affirming the judgment of the district court of that district in a
case of habeas corpus, which ordered the discharge from custody of
the person in whose behalf the writ was sued out.
On the 28th of September, 1885, a petition was presented to the
district court alleging that Jung Ah Lung, a subject of the Emperor
of China, was unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the master of
a steamship in the port of San Francisco; he having arrived in that
vessel, and not being allowed to land, because it was contended
that it was unlawful for him to do so, under the provisions of the
acts of Congress on the subject.
On the filing of the petition, a writ of habeas corpus was
Page 124 U. S. 623
issued by the district court to the master of the vessel,
commanding him to produce the body of Jung Ah Lung before the
court. This was done, and the master made return that he held Jung
Ah Lung in his custody, "by direction of the customs authorities of
the port of San Francisco, California, under the provisions of the
Chinese Restriction Act." On the 12th of October, 1885, by leave of
the court, the United States attorney for the district was allowed
to file, on behalf of the United States, a special intervention and
plea to the jurisdiction of the court. Two questions were raised by
it: (1) that Jung Ah Lung was not so restrained of his liberty as
to be entitled to the benefit of a writ of habeas corpus (2) that
the collector of the port had passed judgment on the matters of law
and fact involved, and the same were
res adjudicata. To
this intervention Jung Ah Lung demurred, and the demurrer was
sustained. The opinion of the court is reported in 25 F. 141. It
considered the question of jurisdiction, and held that (1) the case
was a proper one for the issuing of a writ of habeas corpus (2) the
collector was not clothed with exclusive jurisdiction in the
premises. It gave leave to the district attorney to file an
intervention to the merits, which he did, setting forth that Jung
Ah Lung was lawfully refused permission to land in the United
States, in compliance with the provisions of acts of Congress,
because he failed to produce to the collector the certificate of
identification provided for by those acts, and that he was not
entitled to land in the United States. The issue thus joined was
tried by the court.
There is a bill of exceptions, which states that the counsel for
Jung Ah Lung offered to prove that he was a Chinese laborer,
residing in the United States on November 17, 1880, the date of the
last treaty between the United States and the Emperor of China;
that he resided in the United States continuously until October 24,
1883, when, being about to return to China, he received from the
collector of San Francisco a certificate enabling him to reenter
the United States, in conformity with the act of Congress of May 6,
1882, c. 126, 22 Stat. 58; that he departed for China, taking such
duplicate with him; that he remained in China until he embarked
for
Page 124 U. S. 624
San Francisco, on August 25, 1885; that prior thereto, and in
June, 1885, he was deprived of said certificate by its being taken
from him by robbery by pirates in China; that the books in the
registration office of the custom house in San Francisco showed
that the certificate was issued to him; that no one had presented
it or entered upon it, and it was uncancelled, and that he
conformed in every particular with the description kept in such
registration office of the person to whom such certificate was
issued. The district attorney objected to the introduction of this
testimony as incompetent, on the ground that the statute provided
that the certificate should be the only evidence permissible to
establish the right of a Chinese laborer to reenter the United
States, and that no secondary evidence of the loss and contents of
the certificate could be received. The objection was overruled by
the court. The district attorney excepted to the ruling, and the
evidence was received.
The district court filed the following findings:
"Counsel for applicant proceeded to introduce testimony, by
which it appeared to the satisfaction of this Court, and this Court
so finds that, Jung Ah Lung is a Chinese laborer, being one of the
proprietors of a laundry situated at No. 1391 Second Avenue, New
York City; that he was a resident of the United States on the 17th
day of November, A.D. 1880, the date of the last treaty between the
United States and the Empire of China, and that he resided
continuously in the United States until on or about the 24th day of
October, A.D. 1883, when he sailed for China on the steamer
Rio
de Janeiro; that, before sailing for China, he duly applied
for and received from the collector of customs for the district of
San Francisco a certificate of identification, stating his name,
age, occupation, last place of residence, physical marks and
peculiarities, and all facts necessary for his identification in
conformity to the act of Congress entitled 'An act to execute
certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese,' approved May 6,
1882; that he departed on said steamer for China, having in his
possession, and taking away with him, the said certificate; that
during the month of June, A.D. 1885, while on a voyage from
Page 124 U. S. 625
his native village to the City of Canton, China, the junk upon
which he was a passenger was attacked by pirates in waters
notoriously infested with piratical craft, who deprived said Jung
Ah Lung of said certificate entitling said applicant to reenter the
United States; that no one has presented said certificate at this
port, and said certificate is outstanding, and remains uncancelled
on the books of the custom house for the district of San Francisco;
that the applicant corresponds in all respects to the description
contained in the registration books of the custom house of the
person to whom the said certificate was issued, and that no doubt
can be entertained that the applicant is the person to whom the
said certificate was issued and delivered; that it was not
suggested by the district attorney, nor contended by him, that the
proof, if admissible, failed to establish, in the most satisfactory
manner, the facts herein found by the court, and he claimed that
the applicant should be remanded solely on the ground that the
testimony offered by the applicant could not, under the provisions
of the acts of Congress known as the 'Restriction Acts,' be
received in evidence. Whereupon the court, being of opinion that
the said proofs were admissible, and fully established the facts as
claimed by the applicant, ordered that he be discharged."
The district attorney filed the following exceptions to the
findings:
"1st. That the court had no authority or jurisdiction to issue a
writ in this case, as the applicant was not restrained of his
liberty within the true intent and meaning of the act of Congress
known as the 'Habeas Corpus Act.'"
"2d. That the court, on the return of said writ of habeas
corpus, had no authority or jurisdiction to inquire into and decide
upon the lawfulness of said alleged restraint, for the reason that
the same had been decided to be lawful by the collector of the port
of San Francisco, or his deputy."
"3d. For the reason hereinbefore set forth, the said testimony
as to the issuance, loss, and contents of the certificate mentioned
aforesaid, and the evidence of the fact that the applicant is the
identical person to whom said certificate was issued, is
inadmissible, under the provisions of the said Restriction
Page 124 U. S. 626
Acts, and that the applicant, having failed to produce his
certificate, is not now entitled to enter the United States."
On the 5th of November, 1885, the district court entered a
judgment discharging Jung Ah Lung from custody. The United States
appealed to the circuit court from the judgment, and from the
rulings objected to by the United States on the trial, and
especially from the order sustaining the demurrer to the special
intervention and plea to the jurisdiction, and from the rulings
admitting other testimony than the certificate to establish the
right of Jung Ah Lung to come into the United States. The circuit
court affirmed the judgment, as before stated, and from its
judgment this appeal is taken.
It is contended for the United States that there was no
jurisdiction in the district court to issue the writ in the first
instance, because the party was not restrained of his liberty
within the meaning of the habeas corpus statute. It is urged that
the only restraint of the party was that he was not permitted to
enter the United States. But we are of opinion that the case was a
proper one for the issuing of the writ. The party was in custody.
The return of the master was that he held him in custody by
direction of the customs authorities of the port under the
provisions of the Chinese Restriction Act. That was an act of
Congress. He was therefore in custody under or by color of the
authority of the United States within the meaning of § 753 of the
Revised Statutes. He was so held in custody on board of a vessel
within the City and County of San Francisco. The case was one
falling within the provisions of chapter 13 of Title 13 of the
Revised Statutes.
It is also urged that if the right to issue the writ existed
otherwise, under the general provisions of the Revised Statutes,
that right was taken away by the Chinese Restriction Act, which
regulated the entire subject matter and was necessarily exclusive.
The Act of May 6, 1882, c. 126 (22 Stat. 58), entitled "An act to
execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese," as
originally passed, and as amended by the Act of July 5, 1884, c.
220, 23 Stat. 115, is set forth in the margin, the words in italics
being introduced by the act of 1884, while
Page 124 U. S. 627
those in brackets were in the act of 1882, and were stricken out
by the act of 1884.
124 U. S. S.
628�
We see nothing in these acts which in any manner affects the
jurisdiction of the courts of the United States to issue a
Page 124 U. S. 629
writ of habeas corpus. On the contrary, the implication of § 12
is strongly in favor of the view that the jurisdiction of
Page 124 U. S. 630
the courts of the United States in the premises was not intended
to be interfered with. That section provides that
Page 124 U. S. 631
"any Chinese person found unlawfully within the United States
shall be caused to be removed therefrom to the country
Page 124 U. S. 632
from whence he came, . . . after being brought before some
justice, judge, or commissioner of a court of the United States,
and found to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the
United States."
So that if it were to be claimed by the United States that Jung
Ah Lung, if at any time he should be found here, was found
unlawfully here, he could not be removed to the country from whence
he came unless he were brought before some justice, judge, or
commissioner of a court of the United States, and were judicially
found to be a person not lawfully entitled to be or remain here.
This being so, the question of his title to be here can certainly
be adjudicated by the proper court of the United States, upon the
question of his being allowed to land.
It is also urged that the statute confides to the collector of
the port of San Francisco the authority to pass upon the question
of allowing Jung Ah Lung to land in the United States, and provides
no means of reviewing his action in the premises; that only
executive action in enforcing the treaty and the statutes is
contemplated, and that there is no case in law or equity growing
out of the facts to be inquired into by a judicial tribunal.
It is true that the ninth section of the act provides that
before any Chinese passengers are landed from a vessel arriving in
the United States from a foreign port, the collector of customs of
the district in which the vessel arrives shall proceed to examine
such passengers, comparing with the list and with the passengers
the certificates issued under the act, and that no passenger shall
be allowed to land in the United States from such vessel in
violation of law. But we regard this as only a provision for
specifying the executive officer who is to perform the duties
prescribed, and that no inference can be drawn from that or any
other language in the acts that any judicial cognizance which would
otherwise exist is intended to be interfered with.
It is also urged that the treaty itself contemplates only
executive action, for the reason that the fourth article of the
treaty, 22 Stat. 858, provides that if the legislation adopted by
the United States to carry out the treaty shall be
"found
Page 124 U. S. 633
to work hardship upon the subjects of China, the Chinese
minister at Washington may bring the matter to the notice of the
Secretary of State of the United States, who will consider the
subject with him."
But there is nothing in this provision which excludes judicial
cognizance, or which confines the remedy of a subject of China, in
a given case of hardship, to diplomatic action.
The remaining question is as to the effect of the nonproduction
of the certificate. It is contended for the United States that the
actual production by Jung Ah Lung of the certificate issued to him
was essential to enable him to land; that the statute does not
provide for secondary evidence of its contents, and that it is of
no consequence that he corresponds in all respects to the
description contained in the registration books at the custom house
of the person to whom the certificate was issued, for the reason
that the statute does not say that such species of evidence can be
resorted to.
Jung Ah Lung having departed from the United States on the 24th
of October, 1883, and having then received the certificate of
identification under the act of 1882, his case is to be governed by
the provisions of that act, and not by the provisions of the act of
1884. The certificate he received contained the matters provided
for by the act of 1882, and not those provided for by the act of
1884. The registry books of the custom house contained, in regard
to him, the particulars specified in the act of 1882, and not those
specified in the act of 1884. The provisions of the act of 1884, in
the respects in which they differ from those of the act of 1882, do
not apply to him or to his certificate;, and, if he had his
certificate to present to the collector, he could not be required
to present a certificate containing the additional particulars
required by the amendments made by the act of 1884 to the fourth
section of the act of 1882. The provisions of the act of 1884, so
far as they relate to the contents of the certificate to be issued
and of the certificate to be presented to the collector by the
returning Chinese laborer arriving by a vessel, are not
retrospective. This principle was determined in the case of
Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.
S. 536, where it was held that a Chinese laborer
Page 124 U. S. 634
who was residing in the United States at the date of the treaty
of November 17, 1880, and who departed by sea before the passage of
the act of 1882 and remained out of the United States until after
the passage of the act of 1884, was not required to produce any
certificate to the collector, because otherwise his previously
vested right to return would be injuriously affected. The same
principle applies to the present case in respect to the right of
Jung Ah Lung to return without having received a certificate
containing the additional particulars required by the amendatory
act of 1884.
In regard to the main question involved, § 4 of the act of 1882
provides that, for the purpose of properly identifying Chinese
laborers who were in the United States on the 17th of November,
1880, and in order to furnish them with the proper evidence of
their right to go from and come to the United States of their free
will and accord, as provided by the treaty, the collector shall, on
board of the departing vessel, make a list of the Chinese laborers
who are about to sail, which shall be entered in registry books to
be kept for the purpose, in which shall be stated the particulars
specified by the section and all facts necessary for the
identification of each Chinese laborer, which books shall be safely
kept in the custom house, and that each Chinese laborer shall
receive from the collector at the time such list is taken a
certificate signed by the collector and attested by his seal of
office which shall contain a statement of the particulars before
mentioned and facts of identification of himself corresponding with
the said list and registry in all particulars. The section then
says:
"The certificate herein provided for shall entitle the Chinese
laborer to whom the same is issued to return to and reenter the
United States upon producing and delivering the same to the
collector of customs of the district at which such Chinese laborer
shall seek to reenter."
It does not say that such certificate shall be the only evidence
permissible to establish the right of reentry. It merely says that
it shall be given for the purpose of properly identifying the
laborer, and shall be proper evidence of his right to go from and
come to the United States, and shall entitle him to return to and
reenter the United States,
Page 124 U. S. 635
upon producing and delivering it to the collector of the
district at which he shall seek to reenter. It does not say that
the Chinese laborer returning by a vessel shall not be permitted to
enter the United States without producing the certificate. In this
respect there is a marked difference between § 4 and § 12 of the
same act in regard to a Chinese person entering the United States
by land. Section 12 provides that no Chinese person shall be
permitted to enter the United States by land without producing the
certificate mentioned in § 4 of the act. This distinction of
language is very marked, and we think that in the absence of like
language in § 4 in regard to a Chinese laborer arriving by a
vessel, it was competent for the district court to receive the
evidence which it did in the case of a certificate claimed to have
been actually lost or stolen, and that its conclusion of law was
justified by the facts which it found.
In regard to a suggestion made that a Chinese laborer who has
lost his certificate, or from whom it has been stolen, may seek to
reenter the United States by a vessel at some port other than that
at which he received the certificate, and that there would be a
practical difficulty in identifying him at such port in the absence
of the certificate, it is sufficient to say that this is not such a
case, and that there would be no difficulty in producing in
evidence the record of the custom house of the port of departure,
or a copy of it at any port of entry, so as to compare the
particulars stated in it with the Chinese laborer and thus
establish his identity or want of identity.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
HARLAN, J.. with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE FIELD and MR.
JUSTICE LAMAR, dissenting.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD, MR. JUSTICE LAMAR, and myself are unable to
concur in the interpretation placed by the Court upon the Act of
May 6, 1882, passed by Congress in execution of the supplemental
treaty with China concluded on the 17th of November, 1880. By that
treaty, the United States were at liberty, notwithstanding the
stipulations of the original treaty, to enact laws
Page 124 U. S. 636
regulating, limiting, or suspending the coming of Chinese
laborers to, or their residence in, the United States, such
limitation or suspension to be reasonable in its character. It
further provided that
"Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as
teachers, students, merchants, or from curiosity, together with
their body and household servants, and Chinese laborers who are now
[November 17, 1880] in the United States, shall be allowed to go
and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded
all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which are
accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored
nation."
The first section of the Act of May 6, 1882, suspends the coming
of Chinese laborers to the United States from and after the
expiration of ninety days next after that date, and until the
expiration of ten years next after the passage of the act, and
makes it unlawful for
any Chinese laborer to come, or
having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain
in this country.
The second section makes it an offense punishable by fine and
imprisonment for any master of a vessel to knowingly bring any
Chinese laborer within the United States on such vessel from any
foreign port or place.
The third section exempts from the operation of the preceding
sections only such Chinese laborers as were in this country on the
17th of November, 1880, or who shall have come into the same before
the expiration of ninety days next after May 6, 1882,
"
and who
shall produce to such master before
going on board such vessel,
and shall produce to the
collector of the port in the United States at which such vessel
shall arrive
the evidence hereinafter in this act required
of his being one of the laborers in this section
mentioned."
The fourth section provides for registry books, to be kept by
the collector of customs, in which shall be entered a list of all
Chinese laborers departing on any vessel from his district in which
shall be stated the name, age, occupation, last place of residence,
physical marks or peculiarities, and all facts necessary for the
identification of such laborers. Each Chinese laborer so departing
from the country, after the passage of
Page 124 U. S. 637
the act of 1882, was entitled to receive, free of charge, upon
application therefor at the time such list is taken, a certificate
showing the above facts, signed by the collector or his deputy and
attested by his seal of office, in such form as the Secretary of
the Treasury shall prescribe. It is important to observe that this
statute expressly declares that all this was to be done
"
for the purpose of properly identifying Chinese laborers
who were in the United States on the seventeenth of November,
eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the
same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of
this act, and in order to furnish them
with the proper evidence
of their right to go from and come to the United States of
their free will and accord, as provided by the treaty between the
United States and China dated November 17, 1880."
Further:
"The certificate herein provided for shall entitle the Chinese
laborer to whom the same is issued to return to and reenter the
United States
upon producing and delivering the same to
the collector of customs of the district at which such Chinese
laborer shall seek to reenter, and, upon delivery of such
certificate by such Chinese laborer to the collector of customs at
the time of reentry into the United States, said collector shall
cause the same to be filed in the custom house, and duly
cancelled."
The fifth section made provision for a similar certificate to a
Chinese laborer of the class mentioned in the fourth section, and
who desired to depart from this country "by land," to be given by
the collector of customs of the district next adjoining the foreign
country to which such laborer desires to go.
The twelfth section provides that
"No Chinese person
shall be permitted to enter the
United States by land
without producing to the proper
officer of customs
the certificate in this act required of
Chinese persons seeking to land from a vessel,"
etc.
In view of these provisions, we have been unable to reach any
other conclusion than that Congress intended, by the act of 1882,
to prohibit the return to this country of any Chinese laborer who
was here on the 17th of November, 1880, and who thereafter left the
United States, taking with him the certificate
Page 124 U. S. 638
prescribed by that act unless he produced such certificate at
the time he sought to reenter. It is not disputed that such was the
intention of Congress with respect to Chinese persons seeking to
enter the United States "by land." Indeed, dispute upon that point
is precluded by the express prohibition, in the twelfth section,
upon all Chinese persons being permitted to enter this country by
land "without producing to the proper officer of customs the
certificate in this act required." But is there any ground to
suppose that Congress intended to prescribe a different or a more
stringent rule in relation to Chinese laborers entering by land
than that prescribed in relation to Chinese laborers entering at
one of the ports of the country? If it be said that the registry
books kept at the port of departure furnish ample evidence for the
identification of Chinese laborers seeking to enter the country at
that port, we answer (1) that Congress saw fit to exclude from the
country all Chinese laborers of the class to which appellee belongs
unless they produced to the collector the certificate issued as
evidence of their right to reenter the United States; (2) that the
rule prescribed is, by the very terms of the statute, uniform in
its application to all Chinese laborers and to every port of the
United States. The Chinese laborer who received a certificate under
the act of 1882 was not bound to reenter the United States at the
port from which he sailed and at which he received that
certificate. He could, as we have seen, reenter by land or at any
port of the United States "upon producing and delivering" his
certificate "to the collector of customs of the district at which
such Chinese laborer shall seek to reenter." Now suppose the
petitioner, Jung Ah Lung, had sought to reenter the United States
at the port of New York. How could he have been identified at that
port as a Chinese laborer, to whom a certificate had been issued by
the collector of customs at San Francisco? The collector of customs
at New York would have been without authority to accept affidavits
in support of his claim of a right to reenter. It is to be further
observed that the Act of July 5, 1884, 23 Stat. 115, c. 220,
provides that section 4 of the act of 1882 shall be so amended as
to read that "Said certificate shall be the only
Page 124 U. S. 639
evidence permissible to establish his right of reentry." This
did not declare a new rule, but indicates, in language clearer than
that previously used, the intention of Congress in passing the act
of 1882.
If appellee's certificate was forcibly taken from him by a band
of pirates while he was absent, that is his misfortune. That fact
ought not to defeat what was manifestly the intention of the
legislative branch of the government. Congress, in the act of 1882,
said in respect to a Chinese laborer who was here when the treaty
of 1880 was made and who afterwards left the country that "the
proper evidence" of his right to go and come from the United States
was the certificate he received from the collector of customs at
the time of his departure, and that he should be entitled to
reenter "upon producing and delivering such certificate" to the
collector of customs of the district at which he seeks to reenter,
while this Court decides that he may reenter the United States
without producing such certificate, and upon satisfactory evidence
that he once had it but was unable to produce it. As by the very
terms of the act, a Chinese laborer who was here on November 17,
1880, is not excepted from the provision absolutely suspending the
coming of all that class to this country for a given number of
years unless he produces to the collector the certificate issued to
him, we cannot assent to the judgment of the Court.
|
124
U.S. 621|
*
"An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to
Chinese, approved May 6, 1882, as amended July 5, 1884."
"Whereas, in the opinion of the government of the United States,
the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good
order of certain localities within the territory thereof,
therefore:"
"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled:"
"That from and after the [expiration of ninety days next after
the] passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years
next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers
to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended, and
during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese
laborer to come
from any foreign port or place, or, having
so come, [after the expiration of said ninety days] to remain
within the United States."
"SEC. 2. That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring
within the United States on such vessel and land,
or attempt to
land, or permit to be landed, any Chinese laborer from any
foreign port or place shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and,
on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than
five hundred dollars for each and every such Chinese laborer so
brought, and may [be also]
also be imprisoned for a term
not exceeding one year."
"SEC. 3. That the two foregoing sections shall not apply to
Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth
day of November, eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have
come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after
the passage of
the act to which this act is amendatory, nor
shall said sections apply to Chinese laborers, [and] who shall
produce to such master before going on board such vessel, and shall
produce to the collector of the port in the United States at which
such vessel shall arrive, the evidence hereinafter in this act
required of his being one of the laborers in this section
mentioned; nor shall the two foregoing sections apply to the case
of any master whose vessel, being bound to a port not within the
United States, shall come within the jurisdiction of the United
States by reason of being in distress or in stress of weather, or
touching at any port of the United States on its voyage to any
foreign port or place,
provided that all Chinese laborers
brought on such vessel shall
not be permitted to land except in
case of absolute necessity, and must depart with the vessel on
leaving port."
"SEC. 4. That for the purpose of properly identifying Chinese
laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth day of
November, eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into
the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the
passage of
the act to which this act
is
amendatory, and in order to furnish them with the proper
evidence of their right to go from and come to the United States
[of their free will and accord], as provided by the said act and
the treaty between the United States and China dated November
seventeenth, eighteen hundred and eighty, the collector of customs
of the district from which any such Chinese laborer shall depart
from the United States shall, in person or by deputy, go on board
each vessel having on board any such Chinese laborer, and cleared
or about to sail from his district for a foreign port, and on such
vessel make a list of all such Chinese laborers, which shall be
entered in registry books to be kept for that purpose, in which
shall be stated the
individual, family, and tribal name
in full, the age, occupation,
when and where
followed, last place of residence, physical marks or
peculiarities, and all facts necessary for the identification of
each of such Chinese laborers, which books shall be safely kept in
the custom house, and every such Chinese laborer so departing from
the United States shall be entitled to, and shall receive, free of
any charge or cost, upon application therefor, from the collector,
or his deputy
in the name of said collector, and attested by
said collector's seal of office at the time such list is
taken, a certificate, signed by the collector or his deputy, and
attested by his seal of office, in such form as the Secretary of
the Treasury shall prescribe, which certificate shall contain a
statement of the
individual, family, and tribal name
in full, age, occupation,
when and where
followed, [last place of residence, personal description, and
facts of identification,] of the Chinese laborer to whom the
certificate is issued, corresponding with the said list and
registry in all particulars. In case any Chinese laborer, after
having received such certificate, shall leave such vessel before
her departure, he shall deliver his certificate to the master of
the vessel, and, if such Chinese laborer shall fail to return to
such vessel before her departure from port, the certificate shall
be delivered by the master to the collector of customs for
cancellation. The certificate herein provided for shall entitle the
Chinese laborer to whom the same is issued to return to and reenter
the United States upon producing and delivering the same to the
collector of customs of the district at which such Chinese laborer
shall seek to reenter,
and said certificate shall be the only
evidence permissible to establish his right of reentry, and
upon [delivery]
delivering of such certificate by such
Chinese laborer to the collector of customs at the time of reentry
in the United States, said collector shall cause the same to be
filed in the custom house and duly cancelled."
"SEC. 5. That any Chinese laborer mentioned in § four of this
act being in the United States, and desiring to depart from the
United States by land, shall have the right to demand and receive,
free of charge or cost, a certificate of identification similar to
that provided for in § four of this act to be issued to such
Chinese laborers as may desire to leave the United States by water,
and it is hereby made the duty of the collector of customs of the
district next adjoining the foreign country to which said Chinese
laborer desires to go to issue such certificate, free of charge or
cost, upon application by such Chinese laborer, and to enter the
same upon registry books to be kept by him for the purpose, as
provided for in § four of this act."
"SEC. 6. That in order to the faithful execution of [articles
one and two of the treaty in]
the provisions of this act
[before mentioned], every Chinese person other than a laborer, who
may be entitled by said treaty [and] or this act to come within the
United States and who shall be about to come to the United States
shall
obtain the permission of and be identified as so
entitled by the Chinese government,
or of such other foreign
government of which at the time such Chinese person shall be a
subject, in each case, [such identity] to be evidenced by a
certificate issued [under the authority of said] by such
government, which certificate shall be in the English language [or,
if not in the English language, accompanied by a translation into
English, stating such right to come],
and shall show such
permission, with the name of the permitted person in his or her
proper signature, and which certificate shall state the
individual, family, and tribal name
in full,
title, or official rank, if any, the age, height, and all physical
peculiarities, former and present occupation or profession,
when and where and how long pursued, and place of
residence [in China] of the person to whom the certificate is
issued, and that such person is entitled [conformably to the treaty
in]
by this act [mentioned] to come within the United
States.
If the person so applying for a certificate shall be a
merchant, said certificate shall, in addition to above
requirements, state the nature, character, and estimated value of
the business carried on by him prior to and at the time of his
application as aforesaid, provided that nothing in this act nor in
said treaty shall be construed as embracing within the meaning of
the word 'merchant' hucksters, peddlers, or those engaged in
taking, drying, or otherwise preserving shell or other fish for
home consumption or exportation. If the certificate be sought for
the purpose of travel for curiosity, it shall also state whether
the applicant intends to pass through or travel within the United
States, together with his financial standing in the country from
which such certificate is desired. The certificate provided for in
this act, and the identity of the person named therein, shall,
before such person goes on board any vessel to proceed to the
United States, be vised by the endorsement of the diplomatic
representatives of the United States in the foreign country from
which said certificate issues, or of the consular representative of
the United States at the port or place from which the person named
in the certificate is about to depart, and such diplomatic
representative or consular representative whose endorsement is so
required is hereby empowered, and it shall be his duty, before
endorsing such certificate as aforesaid, to examine into the truth
of the statements set forth in said certificate, and if he shall
find upon examination that said or any of the statements therein
contained are untrue, it shall be his duty to refuse to endorse the
same. Such certificate,
vised as aforesaid, shall be
prima facie evidence of the fact set forth therein, and
shall be produced to the collector of customs [or his deputy] of
the port in the district in the United States at which the person
named therein shall arrive,
and afterward produced to the
proper authorities of the United States whenever lawfully demanded,
and shall be the sole evidence permissible on the part of the
person so producing the same to establish a right of entry into the
United States; but said certificate may be controverted, and the
facts therein stated disproved, by the United States
authorities."
"SEC. 7. That any person who shall knowingly and falsely alter
or substitute any name for the name written in such certificate, or
forge any such certificate, or knowingly utter any forged or
fraudulent certificate, or falsely personate any person named in
any such certificate, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and
upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding one
thousand dollars and imprisoned in a penitentiary for a term of not
more than five years."
"SEC. 8. That the master of any vessel arriving in the United
States from any foreign port or place shall at the same time he
delivers a manifest of the cargo, and, if there be no cargo, then
at the time of making a report of the entry of the vessel pursuant
to law, in addition to the other matter required to be reported,
and before landing or permitting to land any Chinese passengers,
deliver and report to the collector of customs of the district in
which such vessels shall have arrived a separate list of all
Chinese passengers taken on board his vessel at any foreign port or
place and all such passengers on board the vessel at that time.
Such list shall show the names of such passengers (and if
accredited officers of the Chinese
or of any other foreign
government traveling on the business of that government, or their
servants, with a note of such facts), and the names and other
particulars, as shown by their respective certificates, and such
list shall be sworn to by the master in the manner required by law
in relation to the manifest of the cargo. Any [willful] refusal or
willful neglect of any such master to comply with the
provisions of this section shall incur the same penalties and
forfeiture as are provided for a refusal or neglect to report and
deliver a manifest of the cargo."
"SEC. 9. That before any Chinese passengers are landed from any
such vessel, the collector or his deputy shall proceed to examine
such passengers, comparing the certificates with the list and with
the passengers, and no passenger shall be allowed to land in the
United States from such vessel in violation of law."
"SEC. 10. That every vessel whose master shall knowingly violate
any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed forfeited to the
United States, and shall be liable to seizure and condemnation in
any district of the United States into which such vessel may enter,
or in which she may be found."
"SEC. 11. That any person who shall knowingly bring into or
cause to be brought into the United States by land or who shall
[knowingly] aid or abet the same or aid or abet the landing in the
United States from any vessel of any Chinese person not lawfully
entitled to enter the United States, shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in a sum
not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned for a term not
exceeding one year."
"SEC. 12. That no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the
United States by land without producing to the proper officer of
customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons
seeking to land from a vessel. And any Chinese person found
unlawfully within the United States shall be caused to be removed
therefrom to the country from whence he came [by direction of the
President of the United States] and at the cost of the United
States, after being brought before some justice, judge, or
commissioner of a court of the United States and found to be one
not lawfully entitled to be or to remain in the United States,
and in all such cases the person who brought or aided in
bringing such person to the United States shall be liable to the
government of the United States for all necessary expenses incurred
in such investigation and removal, and all peace officers of the
several states and territories of the United States are hereby
invested with the same authority as a marshal or United States
marshal in reference to carrying out the provisions of this act, or
the act of which this is amendatory, as a marshal or deputy marshal
of the United States, and shall be entitled to like compensation,
to be audited and paid by the same officers. And the United States
shall pay all costs and charges for the maintenance and return of
any Chinese person, having the certificate prescribed by law as
entitling such Chinese person to come into the United States, who
may not have been permitted to land from any vessel by reason of
any of the provisions of this act."
"SEC. 13. That this act shall not apply to diplomatic and other
officers of the Chinese
or other governments traveling
upon the business of that government, whose credentials shall be
taken as equivalent to the certificate in this act mentioned, and
shall exempt them and their body and household servants from the
provisions of this act as to other Chinese persons."
"SEC. 14. That hereafter no state court or court of the United
States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict
with this act are hereby repealed."
"SEC. 15.
That the provisions of this act shall apply to all
subjects of China and Chinese, whether subjects of China or any
other foreign power, and the words 'Chinese laborers,'
wherever used in this act, shall be construed to mean both skilled
and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining."
"SEC. 16.
That any violation of any of the provisions of
this act, or of the act of which this is amendatory, the punishment
of which is not otherwise herein provided for, shall be deemed a
misdemeanor, and shall be punishable by fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or
both such fine and imprisonment."
"SEC. 17.
That nothing contained in this act shall be
construed to affect any prosecution or other proceeding criminal or
civil, begun under the act of which this amendatory; but such
prosecution or other proceeding, criminal or civil, shall proceed
as if this act had not been passed."