The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-06-16
ADMISSION DENIED
CHINESE MANUFACTURER

The following circular has been is
sued by the Department of Commerce
and Labor:
Department of Commerce and Labor,
Office of the Secretary.
Washington, May IS, 1904
! Sir: Under cover of your letter of
the 30th ultimo, No. 64S-C, the Depart
| ment has received the record on appeal
! in the case of Cheung Win, No. 16 ex
| steamship Gaelic, April II, 1904, who
presented at your port, as evidence of
I right to admission to the United States,
! a certificate prepared under the terms
| of section of the Act approved July
| 5, 1884 and was rejected by you because
of a certain discrepancy between said
certificate and the oral testimony of
appellant, and because of the fact that
he appears personally to be not a mer-
chant as claimed, but a laborer.
The discrepancy alluded to by you
consists in the fact that the certificate
describes appellant as a dealer in fur
niture and foreign goods, whereas he
states that all of the goods sold by his
firm in Canton were manufactured in
that city. This discrepancy is consid-
0Teu Oy you NduO IISnllyD 10 De ma
terially strengthened against appellant
by his personal appearance and dress,
it being stated that he looks like and is
dressed like an ordinary Chinese labor
er. But for this fact, and the one here
matter stated, however, it is thought
that the explanation of the discrepancy
advanced by counsel, to the effect that
the term foreign goods as used in
China means either imported goods or
goods manufactured in China for sale
to foreign residents, might be accepted,
as it is known that the term is accord
ed the said double meaning.
Another and more important reason
exists, however, for the denial of APP
pelIant, to wit: According to his own
sworn statement, the Canton firm in
which he claims membership is en-
gagged in the manufacture of
''black-wood furniture a circum-
stance which removes him from
the mercantile class as contem-
plated by the Characterization law.
Upon this point, see Department deci-
sions of December Z, 1903 mo. 10723-C),
and December IA, 1903 CNo. 9774-C), in
the last mentioned of which the follow
ing passage is quoted from the decision
rendered February IS, 1895, in the Lai
Moy case, by the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (66 F.
R., $3.50:
The designation merchant" does not |
include, comprehensively, all who are |
not laborers, but strictly "a person (to |
quote the acD engaged in buying and !
selling merchandise" To fabricate mer- |
chandise, as appellant did, is not to |
buy and sell it. Nor may both be done. |
for the merchant" may not (again to |
quote the act) engage in the perfor- |
nance of any manual labor except such !
as is necessary in the conduct of his
business as such merchant" that is in /
buying and selling merchandise; and |
the manual labor which is precluded |
Is skilled as we'll as unskilled.
Tt is thought. moreover, that when |
the evidence is considered as a whole
and the dress and personal appearance
Of appellant especially the calloused
condition of his hands,, as reported up
On, are given due weight, the con-
elusion must be reached that appellant
has not been by occupation even a
but has been employed
is a laborer in a furniture factory.
The appeal of the said Cheung Win
S, accordingly, dismissed.
Respectfully,
LAWRENCE 0. MURRAY,
Acting Secrotary.
Commissioner OF immigration,
San Francisco, Cal.