The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-11-01
ADMITTING CHINESE CHILDREN.
The Recent Decisfon of Judge Han
ford Followed Prccedent.

Special Dispatch TO the Post-Inteiiigeucer
PORT TOWNSEND. Oct. M.-Attorney
A. X. Coleman. who defended the case OF
the Chinese boys whom the treasury
agents recently attempted to have deport-
ed. makes an interesting reply to those
VINO havs attempted 20 show that Judge
Hanford's decision allowing the boys 10
remain In this country is a new way of
opening the gates to the fraudulent ad-
mission of the wives and children of Chi
nese merchants doing business in this
country. According to Mr. Coleman's
statement the decision given by Judge
Hanford is directly In line with decision
or the United States supreme court. as
Wei as with long practice of the treasury
department.
"A decision precisely similar 10 that
rendered few days ago by Judge Han
ford was handed down by Chief Justice
Fuller on March II. 1892. 1t was In the
Of Portland. who was refused admission
on his return TO San Francisco because
ne did not have the consular certificate
required by the act of congress of July 5.
I'M The federal court and the federal
court OF appeals both ruled against allow
ing him TO remain, but the supreme court
reversed the case. and said that to require
the Chinese government to certify that a
certain man was merchant in the United
states would be absurd ridiculous and
unjust II is the law of the land that any
mans wife and children are entitled TO the
same rights and privileges as the husband
and father, and. as Judge Hanford held,
the courts are bound to follow the prin-
ciple laid down by the supreme court in
the Lau Ow Bew case.
In the case Of Ching Toy Ho the wife
of Chinese merchant, Judge Deadly held
In 1870 that the act did not apply 10 the
wives and children of Chinese merchants,
and permitted the woman and her child 10
land without the certificate. The law I'M
der which this decision was rendered was
that of July ). 1854. as was the case with
the supreme court and the Hanford de-
cisions. The decision Of Judge Deadly was
fought by the treasury department until
1892. when IL was accepted by the depart
ment. and Chinese have been all along adj
nlitted under IL until last December. when
for some reason the treasury department
again refused to follow the decision. ard
this was responsible for the recent case
before Judge HanfoFd.
"Cp to that time there had been no
question about the proceedings and II was
always the practice for a Chinese mer-
chant who desired TO bring his wife and
before the collector OF customs and
get the collectors advice about bringing
them over. This was the way the Chinese
woman and children who were before
in the country. The husband and father
had previously laid the case before Col
hector Saunders. who gave peruiss. on for
them TO be brought over. Shortly after
that. and before they arrived I'm this coun-
try. the treasury department had re-
yersed the custom. but Collector Saunders
stood by his word Of authority previously
given and when Il was proven that these
chinese were as represented he admitted
them. Judge Hanf0rd sustained him.
"T'he) treasury department can easily
proyide such regulations rs will make II
impossible for any who are not entitled
20 come In under this law 10 do so. and
we heard none Of this talk about fooling
.l,e country with fraudulent wives and
children when the law was in force four