The San Francisco call., 1897-10-28

an opinion n this case IL IL were not for The
fact that recently Judge Lacombe, in the Ii
Fun case $50 Federal Reports, SS1), has given
an effect to this statute as q barrier to the ad-
mission into the United States o. an infant
child of Chinese merchant lawfully residing
therein, and upon bis authority the officers of
the Government insist that the defendant in
this case must be separ ated from her husband
and returned to China In his opinion the
learned Judge seems to have been led to his
conclusion by considerations of what he sup
posed to be the weight OF au uthority, and yet
re ignores entirely the decision by Judge
Deadly in the Chung Toy Ho case aud the de-
cision of the Supreme Court in the Lau Ow
Bow case. He says that the only authority
cited in support of the right of q child of a
Chinese merchant residing here to come into
the United States is the Chung Shee case (71
FEDERAL Reports 277l, but apparently in that
case the betrothed bride held a certificate.
AS matter of fact the Chung Shee case as
reported Is not an authority on that point at
all. The decision in that case by Judge We'll
born was 10 the effect that the right Of the
woman to come into the United States and re-
main had been finally adjudicated by Judge
Bellinger and that the judgment in her favor,
rendered at Portland, Or, was final and con-
elusive; and he, therefore, declined TO con-
slider the question as TO the right OF a wife or
child of Chinese merchant in this country to
como In to the United States without produc-
ing the certificate required by the act OF 1854.
In the Chinese wife case (21. Fed. Rep, 7S5. }
the woman in the case was the wife of Chi
nese laborer and belonged to the class of per-
sons which the statutes prohibit from enter
ing the United States, and Judge Sawyer
placed his decision against the right which
she claimed on that ground.
The opinion by Justice Field, however in
that case does hold that Chinese wife must
be regarded u distinct person, and that to
be entitled TO admission she must furnish q
certificate as required either by section or
by section of the act of 1884 and his opinion
is an authority supporting Judge Lacompe s
decision, entitled TO due respect The only
comment upon it which l deem proper to
make is that it was rendered prior to the de-
cision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Chew Heong Q12 U. s., 356-5SO) in which the
court held that the fourth section OF the act of
May 6, 1882, as amended by the act of
July 5, 1884 prescribing the certificate which
shall be produced by Chinese laborer as the
only evidence permissible to establish his
right 10 re-enter into the United States, is not
applicable to Chinese la aborers who, residing
in this cou~ try at the date of the treaty of No
vember II, 1880, departed by sea before May
6, 1882, and remained out OF the United
States until after July 5, 1884. reversing the
judgment of the Circuit Court of the United
States for the District OF California, given In
accordance with the opinion of Justice Field
and contrary to the opinion OF Justice Sawyer
Recurring 10 the decision of Judge Lacom be
in the Ii Foon case, he states that apparently
! the betrothed bride referred TO in the Chung
Shee case held q certificate IL that fact
might be considered the basis for the decision
in favor of her right to enter. 1t appears.
however by the report of Judge Bellingers $
decision that the only certificate which was
considered in the case was a certificate identi.
Tying the husband aud setting forth that the
petitioner WAS his wife, and that such certif-
cate was intended to evidence her right to
land by virtue of such relation, which GER
tificate was prepared at Portland, Or, and
forwarded to China. Certainly this was: not
the certificate contemplated or required by