The morning call., 1892-03-15
ADMITTING A CHINAMiN.
The Supreme Court Reverses a Califor
mia Court Decision.
LOU oW BEW Can BE LANDED.
Inc Deeilon as Delivered BY Chief Justice Fuller
The Value Of Certificates Rights Of
Privileged Classes.
trecial to THE MoRNINe CALI

WASHINGTON, March 1.-THE United
States Supreme Court today, in a decision
delivered by Chief Justice Fuller, reversed
the decision of the Circuit Court Of Appeals
for the Sinth Circuit, remanded the cause
OF Lou Ow Bew 10 the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Northern District of
California. and directed that Lou Ow Bew
be discharged from custody and allowed to
remain in the United States. The case came
up on writ of certiorar to the United
States Court Of Appeals for the Ninth Cir
cult, which affirmed the judgment of the
Circuit Court OF the United States for the
Northern District of California in habeas
corpus proceedings. which determined that
Lou Ow Bew. the appellant, as a Chinese
person, had no right in the United States
and ordered that he be transported 10 the
port In China whence he came.
Grounds of the Appeal.
Proceedings in the Circuit Court set out
in an application for a writ of certiorari
were: First. that Lou Ow Bew was aboard
OF an ocean steamship that arrived at the
port of San Francisco August IL, 1891. and
was detained by Captain Smith, master Of
the vessel; that he is now. and has been for
seventeen years past, resident of the
United States and domieiled therein dur
lug that time h was engaged in the whole
sale and retail importing business at Port
land, oregon, and a member Of firm worth
$50 900; that the said firm does an annual
business amounting TO $4,000, and pays
large sums IN duties on imports; that on
September 3, 1890, he left the United States
temporarily for China on a visit with the in
tention 10 return as soon as possible TO this
country, and did so return on August IL :;
tnat ut the time OF his departure
he of IN
status III this country as a merchant; that
the Collector OF the Port of San Francisco
while acknowledging the proofs presented,
refused him the right to land on the sole
ground that he had neglected to prod ice a
certificate Of the Chinese Government men,
toned In section of the Chinese restric-
ton act of May &. 1882, and September IA.
1891. and the case being carried to the Cir
cult Court OF Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
was, on the 7th of October, 1891, affirmed
On November Is the Supreme Court, on
application Of the appellant, ordered that a
writ OF certlorari issue to the Circuit Court
OF Appeals requiring 1t 10 certify any case
np Tor revlew'under section Of the act or
Congress OF March creating the court.
The Chief Justices Opinion.
ln his opinion to-day Chief Justice Full
Ter says: First Of all. this question is per-
tinent: Does section 8 of the Chinese re-
strlction act apply 10 Chinese merchants al
ready in the United States, who, having left
the United States for temporary purposes
seek 10 re-enIer IL on their return tn their
business 61d homes? Nothing is better set
sfed than the statutes shonid receive SEN
Sible construction, such As will effectuate
The legislation intended and, Ii possible, so
as 10 avoid an Unjust or absurd conclusion
la the case Of Low \ am Chow it was held
by the Circuit Court OF the District Of Cali
.ornia on September 3, 1882, that Chinese
sde, Giants, at the time of the passage of the
act OF congress OF May 9, los2, in otneI
countries than China, on arriving at port
of the United States are not required by
that act TO produce the certificates of the
Chinese Government establishing their char
acter as such merchants, but il could be es-
tablished by parol evidence.
Mr.. Justice Field, delivering the opinion
OF the court, referring to section of the
act, said: THE certificate mentioned in
this section is evidently designed TO facil-
itate proof by Chinese other than laborers
coming from China and desiring to enter the
United States that they are not within the
prohiblted class. 1t IS not required as
means of restriction; TO hold that such was
its object would be TO impute to Congress
the purpose to disregard the stipulation of
the second article Of the new treaty that
they should be allowed to come and 90 OF
their cwn free will and accord.
Judge Deady 10 the District Court for the
District OF Oregon held on January Is, 1888,
that the certificate provided for in Section
was not the only competent evidence that
SHtucSe peTSo1S were entitled TO come ana
reside within the United States, but that
fact might be shown by any other pertinent
aud convincing testimony. In re Ho kIug,
Fourteenth Federal Reports, Page 724.
The Value of Certificate.
The amendatory act of July 5, 1884. en-
larged the terms of certificate and provided
that IL should also be the sole evidence pei
missabie on the part OF the person produc-
ing the same to establish his right Of entry
INTO the United States. This rule of evil
dence was evidently prescribed by amend
ment as means Of effectually preventing
violation or evasion of the prohibition
against the coming of Chinese laborers. Ii
was designed as safeguard to prevent the
unlawful entry OF such la0orers under the
pretense that they belonged TO the class of
merchants. or to some other class entitled to
enter.
qulring that the certificate Of Identification
snould state not only the holders family
and tribal name in full, but the title, rank
Qf any,. age. height and all physical pecui-
arlties. also his former and present occupa-
tion or profession, how long pursued and
the place Of residence. the nature and char
acter and the estimated value of the busi-
ness carried on by him prior to and at the
tine OF his application for such certificate,
lhyofveS the exaction OF the unreasonable
ana ABSURD condition of foreign Govern
ment certifying to the United States facts
IN regard 10 the place OF abode and business
OF persons residing in this country, which
the foreign Government cannot be assumed
10 know, and the means of information in
regard TO which exist here, unless ii be con-
strued 10 mean that Congress intended that
certihcate should be procured only by
Chinese residing in China or some other
foreign country, aud about to come here for
the hrst time for the PURPOSES of travel or
to take up their residence"
Means OF Identification.
Mr.. Justice Field in the case already
cited referring TO the Chinese Government,
said: "A Government can not be expected
TO give In its certificate the particulars
mentioned OF persons resident (some per-
haps, for many years. out of Its jurisdiction.
Neither the letter nor the spirit of the act
calls Tor construction imputing to Con-
gress the exaction of condition so unrea-
sonable. We repeat what We said in the
case OF All Tie and other Chinese laborers,
mat all laws are to be construed so as to
avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion,
and the general terms are TO be so limited
In their applications as not to lead to in JUS
tice, oppression or an absurd consequence"
Ihe section by its terms declares that
every Chinese person other than laborer,
VINO may be entitled by said treaty or this
act TO come within the United States, and
who shall obtain the permission of, be iden-
tihed and also be entitled by the Chinese
Government or such other foreign Govern
ment OF which at that time such Chinese
person shall be subject, the permission
and Identification in each case to be evil
denced by tho certificate described. but
Chinese merchants domiciled in the United
States and In China for temporary pur-
poses only do not appear to us to occupy
tne predicament OF persons who shall be
about to come to theI United States" when
they start on their return to the country of
their residence and business.
Privileged Classes.
The general terms used should be limited
TO those persons to whom Congress mani
testify intended to apply them, and they
would evidently be those who are about to
come to the United States for the first time,
and therefore might properly he required To