The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-04-12
DECISION OF THE TREASURY
A LOST CERTIFICATE KEEPS OUT
CHINESE LABORER.
The Chinese Exclusion Act Makes No
Provision for the Case-Decison of
Collector Stackable is Sustained.

a returning Chinese laborer whose
return certificate has been lost or des-
troyed is not entitled to reenter the
United States. The Chinese exclusion
law makes no provision for the case Of
lost return certificate which had been
issued to a Chinese laborer and the
Department can not make an exception
which the statutes do not make and
permit the reentry of Chinese laborer
whose said certificate has been lost or
destroyed.
Treasury Department, March /, 1901.
Sir: The Department is in receipt of
your letter of 9Th ultimo, transmitting
papers on appeal in behalf of Lum Ho,
Chinese laborer, who was denied adj
mission at your port on February 6,
1901, upon the ground that he had failed
to produce the return certificate Tequir-
ed by statute.
The appellant claims that the original
certificate issued to him at the time
of his departure was lost in the mail,
and the question at issue is, therefore
whether a returning laborer may be
permitted to enter upon submitting
proof that such a certificate was in
fact issued to him, but has been lost
or destroyed in a manner beyond his
control.
The Solicitor of the Treasury was re-
quested to render an opinion on the
points involved in this case, which he
did under date of February %, 1901
copy of letter inclosed) to the effect
that the Department can not make an
exception which the statutes have not
made. This Nopinion is concurred in,
and your action in refusing admission
to said Lum Ho is sustained
Respectfully,
H. A. TAYLOR.
Assistant Secretary.
fFa11nntnVs Of Al,,1t. To
wall.
Opinion of the Solicitor of the Trea-
sury.
Department of Justice, Office of the
Solicitor of the Treasury.
Washington, d. c., Feb. 81. 1901.
Sir: Lum Ho, returning Chinese la
borer, appeals from the decision of the
collector at Honolulu, Hawaii, denying
him a landing and Commissioner-Gen-
eral Powderly, by reference of the 25th
instant, requests my opinion upon the
merits of his case.
Instead of the certificate required by
section of the act of July 5, 1884, and
section Z of the act of September 10,
1888, Lum Ho, upon his arrival at Homo
lulu presented the affidavit of himself
and another Chinaman, that such GER
tificate had been lost through the post;
also receipt for personal taxes paid in
Hawaii and certificates from the Unit
ed States conSul-general at Hongkong,
and the Chinese consul at Honolulu,
showing Lum Hos inability to return
to Hawaii within a year. by reason of
sickness. The collector declined to re-
ceive these papers in lieu of the certi-
ficate required by law, and denied
landing.
Thu act of 1884 provides that the GER
tficate shall be the sole evidence" of
right to reenter the United States,
and the act of 1883 provides that no
Chinese laborer shall be permitted to
reenter the United States without pro-
ducing the return certificate therein
required. | do not think that these
purposely rigid provisions of law can
be made imperative by the "affidavits"
of Cinnamon.
The law makes no provision for the
case of lost certificate, as in the case
of a lost registration certificate (act
May 3. 1922, and do not think that the
department can make an exception
which the statutes have not made.
I refer, in this connection to the
opinion of this Office given you in Sep
TENDER l. 1899, distinguishing a case like
the present from the case of Jung All
Lung Q24 U. s., CPD, which arose un-
der the act of 1882. That act did not
provide that the certificate should be
the sole evidence of the right to re-
enter, and the court calling attention
to the difference between that act of
| 1884, held that Jung All Lung might re-
enter upon proof of the loss of his GER
tificate. Adhering to the views express
ed in that letter. l have to advise you
that in my opinion, the action of the
collector should be sustained.
Very respectfully,