Case Name: TOM WAH v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1908-06-03
Citations: 163 F. 1008
Docket Number: No. 268
Parties: TOM WAH v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 163
Pages: 1008–1009

Head Matter:
TOM WAH v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 3, 1908.)
No. 268.
Aliens — Chinese—Party to Deportation Proceedings — Compulsion to Testify.
A' Chinese person against whom deportation proceedings are pending may be called as a witness by the United States and compelled to answer questions relevant to the pending issue.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the North ■ ern District of New York.
On appeal from an order (160 Fed. 207) directing that the plaintiff in error, Tom Wah, .be confined in the jail of Franklin county, N. Y., until he expresses a willingness to answer various questions propounded to him in proceedings before a United States commissioner, looking to his deportation to the empire of China.
R. M. Moore, for appellant.
Alford W. Cooley, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A. Warner Parker, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. for the United States.
Before COXE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The question involved may be stated briefly as follows: Can a Chinese person, against whom deportation proceed ings are pending, be called as a witness by the United States and compelled to answer questions relevant to the pending issue? That this question must be answered in the affirmative is sustained by a decided preponderance of authority.
The District Judge has stated the facts and has cited the principal authorities establishing the right and power of the District Court to punish for contempt a witness who refuses to answer in circumstances similar to those shown by this record. Since the decision of the Supreme Court, followed by the Circuit Court of Appeals of several of the circuits, that the proceeding to deport is civil, and not criminal, in its nature, the principal argument for sustaining the refusal to answer has been removed. We deem it unnecessary to add to the discussion found in the opinion below.
The order is affirmed.