The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-28
The Supreme Bench Rules
That He Cannot Re-enter
This Country.
DECISION AT PORT FINAL.
An Aliens Only Recourse Is an
Appeal to the Secretary Of
the Treasury.

preme Court of the United States made
most important ruling upon the mat
ter of the Chinese exclusion laws to-day
by affirming the refusal of the United Dis
trict Court for the Northern District of Cali
fornia to grant an application for writ of
habeas corpus made by Lem Moon Sing,
who was barred from entry by the Col
lector of the Port of San Francisco.
Lem Moon Sing was engaged in business
a member of the wholesale drug firm of
Kee San Tong & Co. of San Francisco. and
in January 1894, went to China, intending
to return to his business. During his alb
sence the appropriation act of August 49,
1894 was passed, containing an item of
10000 for officers to enforce the Chinese
exclusion act and expenses of deportfng
Cinnamon. He returned in November of
the same year, and the Collector at San
Francisco refused to admit him, although
he furnished the testimony of two credible
witnesses, showing that he had been en-
gagged in business as merchant for two
years before leaving the country.
Application was made in the District
Court for the Northern District of Cali
fornia for writ of habeas corpus based on
these facts and the further point that he
was not held by any judicial process. The
writ was denied and an appeal taken to the
Supreme Court.
Justice Harlan, in the opinion delivered
by him for the court, rested the case upon
the statute, providing that the decisions of
emigration or customs officers refusing adj
mission to aliens shall be final unless re-
versed on appeal to the Secretary of the
FHrea IuStipp Harlan cd
former opinions of the court to the effect
that every sovereign has the power, in
herent in sovereignty and essential to self
preservation, to forbid the entrance of
foreigners"
The contention was made by the China
mans attorney that while immigration
officers had jurisdiction to exclude an alien
who was not entitled to entry under some
statute or treaty, the exclusion of an alien
entitled Tor claiming to be entitled) to
enter by law, if it resulted in restraining
the alien of his liberty, presented judicial
instruction, but Justice Harlan said this
view, if sustained. would bring into court
every case of the sort and defeat the mani
fest purpose of Congress in committing to
subordinate immigration officers and to
the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive au-
thority to determine whether aliens seek
ing admission belong to the class entitled
by law or treaty to enter.
In affirming the general right to exclude
aliens Justice Harlan said:
Is statute passed in execution of that
power any less applicable to an alien who has
acquired a commercial domicile in this coun-
try, but who, having voluntarily left the coun.
try, claims the right under some law or treaty
to re-enter it? We think not. The words of
the statute are broad and include every case of
an alien, at least every Chinese alien, who at
the time of its passage is out of this country
and seeks to come back. He is none the less
an alien because of his having commercial
domicile in this country.
While he lawfully remains here he is entitled
to the benefit OF the guarantee OF life, liberty
and property, secured by the constitution to
all persons of whatever race with in the iuris-
diction of the United States. His personal
rights, when he is in this country, and his
property here during his absence are as fully
protected by the supreme law OF the land as
If he was native or naturalized citizen of the
United States. But when he is voluntarily
absent from the country, beyond its jurisdic-
ton, he being an alien, cannot re-enter the
United States in violation of the will of the
Government, as expressed in enactments of
the law-making power. He left the country
subject to the exercise by Congress of every
power it possessed under the constitution.
The remedy of the appellant was by an ap-
peal to the Secretary of the Treasury. If the
act of 1894 takes away from the alien appel
liant any right given by previous laws or
treaties TO re-enter the country the authority
OF Congress to do that cannot be questioned,
although it is the duty of the courts not to
construe an act of Congress modifying or
annulling treaty made with another nation,
unless its words clearly and plainly point to
such construction.
In conclusion, Justice Harlan said the
court did not express any opinion upon
the question whether Lem Moon Sing was
entitled to re-enter the United States.