The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-04-13
LEONG jim IS KEPT OUT.
MINOR SON OF A DOMICILED
MERCHANT.
The Kind of Evidence he Must Produce
of His Relationship-Whit witnesses
Are Absolutely Necessary.

recent treasury decision relating TO
the admission of Chinese into American
territory is of interest. 1t is as follows:
The character of the evidence on
which an applicant for admission as the
minor child of domiciled Chinese
merchant should be very conclusive in
view of the fact that should such
father leave and return, the law re-
quires as a condition of his reentry the
testimony of at least two white wit
nesses to the truth of his allegations.
Treasury Department, March IA, 1901.
Sir: The Department acknowledges
receipt of your communication of 4th
instant, transmitting papers on appeal
in the case of Leong Jim (NO. 12), eX
steamship DOriC, February i, 1901,
whose application for landing as the
minor son of a domiciled merchant in
the United States was refused by you.
The applicant in this case, upon
whom rests the burden of proof offers
the testimony of his alleged father and
another Chinese witness to substantiate
his claim as stated in above paragraph.
Besides this there is no evidence pro-
duced on his behalf, and there is an APP
parent assumption on his part that
his position is analogous to that of
| Chinese applicant presenting section
/ 6 certificate, to wit, that his claim is
prima facie established, and, further
more, that unless the testimony offered
/ by him is refuted by the Government
/ officers he is entitled to land.
The Department does not concur in
/ this view of the case. The applicant
| claims to be the son of a dOmiciled mer-
chant and, by reason thereof, entitled to
! admission. Such a merchant is him
self of the excepted classes, and his
right to return, should he depart from
the country, must be established in a
certain specific way by provision of law
He must have his residence and occu-
patton in this country for at least a
year prior to his departure established
by the affirmative testimony of two
white witnesses. No number of Chi
neSe witnesses, however consistent and
credible their testimony, would an
swer the purpose of establishing his
right to reentry.
The present applicant claims a right
to come in under a provision of law
| which may be regarded as purely hu-
mantaran, that provision which will
not ueny a parent the custody of his
minor child, and certainly with regard
to such an applicant, if the Depart
ment is to observe the spirit of the law,
no less satisfactory testimony should
be accepted to establish his claim than
is required on behalf of the person un-
der whom he claims right to enter, to
! wit, his alleged father dOmiciled
merchant.
The preceding view is stated at some
length and in detail, since the present
is but one of many cases of a similar
character presented for the considera-
ton and finding of the Department to
which the foregoing observations are
| equally applicable.
To return to the case under consider
alton and finding of the Department to
which the foregoing observations are
equally applicable.
To return to the case under consider
alton, the humanitarian basis of the
exception under which applicant claims
the right to land is, as regards him, a
thing of the past. Although he is a
minor, he is in his twentieth year, and
appears from the testimony to have
been engaged in business for himself in
his own country. Moreover, there is q
discrepancy in the testimony between
his alleged father and himself upon a
point with regard to which both should
have been familiar had the relationship
claimed existed between them This
difference occasions a serious doubt as
to whether applicant and his alleged
father are testfying to the truth, the
mere coincidence of their statements
respecting the village of applicants re.
sidence in China, the name of his moth.
er and his age, to the contrary not
WithStanding. Such an agreement
might easily exist in the testimony Of
any number of people coming from the
same place, although no relationship
existed between the different witnesses
There is also to be noted in this case
the fact that an additional witness, who
testifies to having seen applicant in his
own country and. known his mother
fails to show that he knew, or had
! means of knowing, that the said mother
, is the wife of applicants alleged father
Under all the circumstances in the
, case, both in view of the general OBJ
serVations preliminary to the consider
, alton of the evidence adduced on behalf
, of applicant, as well as of the unsatls
, factory and insufficient nature of the
, said evidence itself the Department |!
of the opinion that your finding was
correct, and it, therefore, dismisses the
appeal.
Respectfully,
H. A. TAYLOR.
Assistant Secretary.
| COLLECTOR of Customs. San Francisco