The San Francisco call., 1896-06-24

well known to the trainers of the treaty. They
knew also that no country has Consuis at It's
own ports. 1t seems clear, therefore, that they
could not have meant the port OF departure
from China.
Ii this be true, ii appears to follow that the
trainers of the treaty must nave meant the
port from which the laborer departs from TINS
country. He is required TO deposit written
description of his family, property or deots
with the Collector OF Customs OF the district
from which he departs"
While at first glance, the phrase sport OF de-
parture'' may appear, from its use in connec'
tiOD with the phrase port al which such
Chinese subject snail land in the United
States" to indicate the point of beginning oi
the voyage OF return, this appearance must
give way before the manifest necessity OF SO
construlng the treaty, ii possible, as to give II
the operation which the parties plainly in
tended 1t to have. Besides, the two phrases
may both fairly be construed as referring to
the Uni ted States, requiring the TACT OF un-
avoidable detention to be reported to the
person desiring to return left this country,
and the certificate thereof to be sent to the
collector OF the port at which he desires to re-
enter ii.
As Chinese Consuls in this country are re-
ceiyed by our Government and subject to re-
call on their own request it was naturally will
ing 10 trust to their good faith and the Chinese
Government, one OF the parties 10 the treaty,
had the right to require of them the service IT
imposes. The only other possible construction
Is that the phrase, "Chinese Consul at the port
OF departure, was lnteQQeQ TO designate our
ConsuIS at Chinese ports, but such construc-
non would require an entire change OF the
language used. When that meaning was in
tended, Article III shows that the makers OF
the treaty knew how to express II. That artl-
Gle, IN providing for the rights OF Chinese offl-
clals, students merchants ETC., to come to
and reside in the United States, authorizes "a
certificate from their Government or the Gov
ernment where they last resided vised by the
diplomatic or consular representative OF the
United States in the country or port whence
they depart"
While the language of the section you sub
init Is not explicit, and the question presented
cannot, therefore, be answered with entire
freedom from doubt, my opinion Is that the
officer 10 whom the facts of sickness or dis
ability are to be reported is the Consul who
represents the Chinese Government at the
place whence the lGborer left the United
states. While the words used port" and
land" usually relate to a sea voyage, they
were used because the Chinese generally go
and come by sea, and not because it was the
intention 10 limit the right to return to such
as travel in that way. This Is apparent from
the last sentence of the section: And no
such labOrer shall be permitted 10 enter the
United States by land or sea without pro-
ducing to the proper officer of the customs the
return certificate herein required" Instances
where expressions suggested by the com
monest form OF the subject dealt with have
been held TO apply TO ali its forms are not un-
common in judicial decisions.
Moreover, the word ''port' does not always
mean a seaport when it is used in connection
with our customs officers and the word Gland"
is not necessarily limited TO Decentralization
from ship.
1t appears to be necessary for the laborer to
leave this country at a place which is port
and IS within the jurisdiction of a Chinese
Consul, and that he should return TO it at q
port OF entry where there is a collector; but as
his right to depart and return by land as well
as by sea is recognized by he treaty these
places need not be seaports.
As the manifest object of this clause of the
treaty was o relieve returning laborers from
the consequences OF sickness or casualty the
argument from inconvenience is not without
weight. Detentions from these causes are
quite likely 10 occur after the commencement
OF long voyage, which, in heir absence
would accomplish the return before the ex.
piration of the year. Sickness, storms or the
many mishaps of ocean travel may require the
statement mentioned in the treaty on arrival
IN the United States, although it seemed un-
necessary before starting. These facts must
have been IN the minds of the trainers of the
treaty; yet If any other construction be
adopted than that which I have indicated the
unfortunate traveller would have to return to
the place from which he started or undergo
the long delay which would be required to
communicate the facts to the officer at that
point and receive his certificate thereof. Very
respectfully,
JUDsoN HARMON, Attorney General.