The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-05-22
ONE MORE BAR LET DOWN.
Interesting Decision by the Court
Of Appeals.
DIsTRICTJUDdE MORROW WRONG
1t Is not Necessary for Chinese to
Advertise Themselves in Their
Business.

The case of Lee Kan. Chinese mer-
chant who was refused a landing. was
finally disposed of in the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday. after
having been passed upon by Judge Nor
row of the United States District Court
and United States Attorney-General Olney.
1t was made test of the facts which a
Monaghan merchant must prove in order
to be allowed to enter the country, and
has been exercising the Federal authorities
to no small extent, as upon it depends very
largely the efficacy Of the present Geary
restriction law.
Judges McKennp. Hawley and Gilmore
were on the bench, and Judge McKenna
read the decision, which 0verrules the
Judgment of District Judge Morrow and
the opinion of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OlDey.
who decided that Lee Kan should not be
permitted to remain on American soil.
The ground taken by Judge Morrow and
the Acknowledgement was that mer-
chants name must be incorporated in the
name of the firm IN which he claimed to
hold an interest. They admitted that Lee
Kan was a member of the Chinese firm at
AT Commercial street, and that his name
was on the books OF the Custom-hOuse as
partner. but still held that under the law
he was not entitled 10 landing.
The opinion was very lengthy one, and
discussed the custom of the Chinese in the
matter of selecting firm names which very
generally do not include the names of the
partners, hut have 4 meaning, such as
the Good Luck Company. the Christian
Company" etc.
The Judges declare that Mr.. Geary's
language was not directed at merchants,
nor intended to regulate their methods of
business. 1t was directed at labOTers to
prevent them from assuming false char
acter. TO cOnstrue it otherwise would be
TO subject them TO discrimination TO
which no other merchants are subjected.
The opinion concludes:
Very few of our own business houses contain
the names of all the partners. many of them be-
lug designated by The addition Of land COM
pany."
We cannot believe that Congress intended to
forbid the Chinese merchants not only their
own customs, but the customs of all merchants,
no matter TO what race they belong, but con-
stTue section 10 mean that the Interest OF The
merchant must be real and appear III the busl-
ness ana c0partnership articles liz his own
name, and not that his name must appear in
the firm designation.
There can be no legislation in order TO Sc
cure the exclusion of Chin Sc labOrerS; TO give
a strained construction of section as we con
stTue il IL is entirely sufficient aud completely
fulilis the objects OF the legislation.
1t does not restrict real merchants in the
privileges guaranteed by the treaties, and it
prevents false ones from claiming them.
Ii makes the definition OF the word merchant
that which il was intended to De.
The burden of prOOf'is on the person seeking
10 land and the character Of the facts which lie
must prove, the time which they must have
existed and the witnesses by whom they must
be proved, together with the possibilities of
counter proofs irresistbv suggested, make de-
cepiiOn impossible. except under very Legli-
gent admlnistr alton OF the law. A place in the
firm name would not prevent this.
The Judgment of lie District Court is re-
VeTsed anu the prisoner is DISCHARGED