Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1882-10-28

enjoy the same privileges, lmrlunltle
or exemptions in regard to travel o
residence as may be enjoyed by citizen
or subjects of tho most favored nation
and reciprocaliy Chinese subjects visit
ing or residing in the United States
shall enjoy the same privileges, immun
tiles and exemptions in regard to trave
or residence as may be enjoyed b!
citizens or subjects of the mos
favored nation" By the supplementary
treaty of November, 1880. the govern
ment of China agrees that the govern
ment of the United States may regu
late. limit or suspend such coming OF
residence of Chinese iaborers, bu'
may not absolutely prohibit it. The
second article exempts Chinese lahorers
who were then in the United States
from any such restriction, and declares
that they "shall be allowed to go and
come of their own free will and accord,
and shall be accorded all the rights,
privileges, ETC., which are accorded to
citizens and subjects Of the most fa-
vored nation" The Act of May 6,
1882, was not designed to repeal or in.
'AA1No ehO tiodty vi ICoo, pu" ~ CN'
pressly entitled can Act to Execute
Certain Treaty Stipulations Relating to
the Chinese 1t is clear. then, that
the persons in question are legally en-
titled to return to the United States.
The only remaining question is. What
evidence of the residence and identity of
such returning Chinese laborer shall he
be required to produce? The first and
second sections Of the Act of 1882 pro-
hibit the coming of Chinese laborers
to the United States. and prohibit the
master of vessels who shall bring from
any foreign port or place any Chinese
laborer. from landing such iaborer.
While section third excerpts in terms
only such Chinese laborers as shall pro-
duce to such master and to the col
lector OF the port at which the vessel
shall arrive the certificate prescribed
by the statute, it does not In express
terms say that no other evidence than
such certificate shall in any case be re-
ceived, and the implication is strong
that 10 the cases covered by the statute
such certificate constitutes the only
legal proof of residence aud identity.
All laws are to rec i've a reasonable con-
struction and the intent of the Legisla-
ture in a case of doubtful construction
is always to be regarded.
The conclusion seems to be inevita-
h!e tLat Chinese laborers residing in the
United States at the date of the con-
frmation of the treaty of 1880 have a
right to return at pleasure, and if they
left the country before the date of the
passage Of the Act Of 1882 they cannot
be required to produce the certificate
prescribed by that statute. Not being
required to produce statute evidence.
what proof shall be required? The |
answer must be: Such proof as is sat
sfactory to the collector of the port or
% a court having jurisdiction. 1t is
that many Chinese laborers /
'esident in the United States at the |
late of the treaty of 1880 went to China |
before the passage of the Act of 1882, |
:akiug with them certificates |
rom the Chinese Consulate at San |
Francisco of such residence, and
hat they were entitled to go to and |
rom China or any other country freely |
ind without hindrauce. in accordance |
With treaty stipulations. 1t is the
opinion OF the Department that such |
certificate may De used "a prima |
'acie evidence of such residence and |
IDENTIFY Of the person producing 1t. |
such certificate, however. is not Conciu. |
i've. and if there is any reason in any !
ase to suspect fraud or imposition, the
will make a rigid investigation |
nd refuse permission to the passenger
o lana until satisfactory evidence ia |
sroduced. II will be understood, Of |
curse, that the decision of this Depart
neut is subject to be orerru)ed by the
Onrts.