The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-01-15
THE DEPORTATION LAW.


Chin Chew Coy Had Property Rights
Before Act Was Passed.
The recent decision OF Judge Ham
ford In reference to Chin Chew Coy
does not vary the deportation law
as 1t has heretofore been under
stood. Coy had been a merchant.
and through the effects OF the hard times
became a laborer. although he still re-
tained an interest In store in Portland.
He was arrested on charge of being I'M
lawfully In the country. Judge Hanford
released him, because. although he was
merchant no longer, the treaty preserved
his rights.
Judge Haaford said in regard to the eff
feet and scope OF the decision:
ut will work no wholesale change In
conditions. A few eases may arise in the
future where merchants may become la
borers and this decision will cover such
cases. According to my idea you cannot
send man out OF the country under the
circumstances In this case without violat-
ing the treaty between the United States
and China. One reason for my decision
in this case was that Coy held an interest
In store in Portland and 1t would de-
prive him of his property rights to send
him out OF the country and that, too.
would be in violation of the treaty. Tn
der the terms OF the Geary act Chinese
cannot be merchant unless he follows
that occupation alone. but at the time
the Geary act VAS In effect he was a mer-
chant and subsequently he became a cook.
My decision was that under article 4 Of
the treaty Coy was entitled to be pro-
tee,ed In all the rights he had formerly ac-
CURED and that therefore he was entitled
to a legal residence In the country
Collector Saunders anticipates no radi-
cal change In the enforcement OF the Chi
neSe exclusion law by reason OF Judge
Hanford's decision denying the right of
deportation OF Chinese who was form
erly a merchant but since has become a
laborer. He said: Chew Coy was form
erly a merchant i'm Portland and on ac-
count of failure IN business was conn
PEELED TO resort TO manual labor to gain
livelihood, Judge Hanfordfs decision
was efninently correct. believe. 1t can
not affect tho enforcement of the pres
eat law. The present rule requiring two
reputable white witnesses To vouch tor
the fact that n Chinese. who desires to
leave the country, Is a bona fife mer-
chant and had been such for more than
ore year last past. is still In force. Tn
less they can produce such proof no Chi
nese merchants are admitted IN the dis
srict from foreign territory. The oray
Inconvenience Ii involves Is 20 the Chi
nese themselves, who have failed as
merchants and are reduced 10 labor
ers. They must always stand ready TO
prove their former occupation To avoid
deportation
Chinese Inspector Frank y. Schuyler
entersains the same opinion regarding
the probable effect Of Judge IIantords
decision in the Chin Coy case as Col
hector saunders Mfr. Schuyler says:
Il believe the worst feature OF The
1ew treaty is that 1t VIII make IL hard
10 distinguish teachers. tourists. mer-
chants or travellers for curiosity or pleas
ure. from lahoreTs. Take for instance
a case where firm IS composed OK say
twenty-five members as IS often the
case with Chinese firms. and business be-
comes sisll. and they are compelled to
seek manual iahor and are found so do
Ing, they viii be subjected 70 the game
proceeding as In tals case OF Chin Gov
Had II not been for this new trcaxy,
Judge Hanfori would probably nave been
una1s. 70 decide the case as there vas
10 provision in the then existing law"