The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-07-17

matte service are admitted upon their credeu-
tlals, and all other admissible persons Of that
race race must h produce ine governmental certificate
II Is manifest that until the Chinaman shah.
by statutory evidence. overcome the prlma facis
rule OF exclusion which exists against him ho
cannot be permitted to enter the United States
Hence the burden OF proof rests upon hina and
ne must establish his right to enter. The de-
csions made prior to the supplemental ie9isla-
tion illustrate the application OF the rule. In tie
case In re Ho King IA Fed. Rep. 724) the court
says: "Indeed. the fact OF being compelled TO
make proof or his condition or character az all
is burden and inconvenience upon The Chinese
coming to the United States which Is not
aniTs;d ire; by any ether immigrant or visitor comm:
In the absence OF the certificate OF the Chinese
Government, "a Chinese claiming tue right 60
establish the fact that lie Is not iaborer by evil
fact"
THE PRIvILEGED CLASSES.
In this case those Chinese who have the right
under The treaty and the laws TO come into the
country are designated privileged Classes"
who are entitled 10 certificates, and The u0n-
production Of certificates Is considered presump-
tive evidence OF the fact that the person Ia pro-
hlbiled; In the case In re Tung Yeong Q9 Fed.
hep. lS4l. The onus resting upon the Chinese
person TO establish his right 10 enter the c0uu-
try Is distinctly recognized. Referring TO the
law as It then existed tile court says: "The
right OF laborers who can prove they were In Che
country at tile date OF the treaty aud had left
before the law went into effect TO be allowed 10
certlncate, being thus recognized, the court held
that The burd-n of proof was OH thsm and that
satisfactory evidence Of the facts would be Wig
orousy exacted." 1t is also staie ed that "ln no
case has person been allowed TO land on the
plea OF previous residence on unsupported Chi
nese oral testimony" When a person OF tie
Chinese race unawfully enters this country or is
found unawfuy within II. and claims to be eu-
titled 10 he returned to foreign country other
than China, IL must likewise be held that the
burden of proof is upon him to establish the con-
euslon that he Is subject Of such foreign couu-
have presented the statutes as they existed
prior TO and until tile passage OF the act "maklng
appropriations for suudry civil expenses" etc,
passed August 80, 1890, by which Is enacted
the following provisions: Enforcement of tie
Chinese exclusion act-TO prevent the unlawful
entry OF Chinese into the United States by the
appointment of suitable officers to enforce the
laws In relation thereto, ana for expenses OF re-
turning to China all Chinese persons found TO be
unlawfuy within the United States, S50,000"
The same provision is fe-enacted In the similar
act of 1891 {StatuTes $780, except the amount
appropriated IS Increased 10 100000. This legis-
lation is last in the order Of time, IL recOg-
niZes the existing laws by providing fer their en-
fOrcement, and supplements them by approprt-
atlug money "lor expenses Of returning to China
all chinese persons found 10 be unlawfully
within the United States"
This last expression OF the law-naker, which
may be said to cOmprise both au appropriation
for and an amendment to the Chinese exclusion
laws, bears with great force against sending any
OF the prohibited pei sous TO foreign contiguous
countries unless they are In position 10 be cou-
sidered a. actual subjects OF those countries.
Further than this do not deem myself called
upon To express an opinion as 10 the enactmenls
OF 1890 aud 1891.
EVIDENCE MUST BE CONVINCING.
Recognizing the importance OF the due and
efiicl mt execution OF the laws, deem 1t my duty
TO say, In view OF the important questions pre-
seBted by the papers submitted ID my examins-
tion, that not only is exclusion the rule aud ad-
mission the exception, and not only is the bur-
den OF proof upon tile Chinese applicant for ad-
mission, but the evidence must he convincing.
It has been ofiicially recognized aud set forth In
reports of committees OF our national Legisa-
ture aud in decisions of our courts of last resort
that much OF tile evidence offered on behalf OF
Chinese laborerS seeking admission into this
country has been unreliable aud uutruStwortEY
In It's character and not entitled to credit.
This necessary conclusion has general appli-
cation and Is distinctly declared and acted upon
in tiIe Chinese Exclusion Case Q3O q. s., 59S,
599) and Is illustrated further in Qu0ck Ting
VS.. Ine United States (May IL, 189l) In thess
aud many other cases the rule Of law that must
be applied Is plainly written. II Is obligatory
upon all concerned.
Iu conclusions. have the honor to answer
your inquiry by saying that. In my opinion. uu-
der our laws. Chinese persons found TO be un-
lawfully in this country may be removed direct
ly TO China, unless they shall show, in the man.
ner and under the rules hereinbefore Indicated,
that they are not subjects OF China, aud thar
they are The subjects OF some other foreign
power. Whether under the language Of tue acIS
of Congress OF 1890 and 1891 naiives of China
naturalized in a foreign country would be sub
ject 10 different rule Is not decided. Very re-
slectfully, w. II. Ii. MILLER,
Attorney General.