Court Opinion

ID: 9417555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:24:48.547708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:45.865854
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Beewee
dissenting:
I am unable to agree with the conclusions reached by the court. . They seem to me to be in the face of positive, unim*423peached and uncontradicted testimony. The single question is one of fact, whether the petitioner was born in this country or not? On the hearing he was represented by counsel'; so was the government. ITe testified that he was sixteen years old, was born on Dupont Street in San Francisco, and named the place on that street; that he lived there until he was ten years of age; and that he then went with his mother, on the steamer Eio de Janeiro, to China. With them on the steamer were three friends of the family, whose names he gave. His father, who was also a witness, testified that the boy was born in San Francisco, at the place named, No. 1030 Dupont Street; that he remained there until he was ten years of age; and .that at that time he sent the petitioner, with his mother, back to .China. He. gave the day and the year oh which the boy sailed. He gave as a reason for sending his wife and son back to China, that his parents were old, and as he could not go himself, sent her to attend on them. He produced his store-book on which appeared an entry of the purchase of the tickets for the boy and his mother, an entry of date the day before that on which the- steamer named sailed. No' witness was called to contradict this testimony. They were the only witnesses. The only thing which makes against the boy’s testimony, is the fact that he did not know a word of English. But is it strange-thatr a boy born-and brought up ir a Chinese family, and living until he was ten years old in that part of San Francisco which' is practically a Chinese town,- and then taken back to China, should know only the Chinese language?' It' is -true he did not give the details of his boyhood in San Francisco; but no question was asked- of him in respect to them. If the government, through its counsel, wished to discredit' his positive testimony it was its province, on cross-examination, to question him as to his knowledge of various localities in San Francisco, and of events which happened during the time'he .claimed to have resided there. The books of the steamér, if accessible, were not produced to show that no such passengers sailed on the trip named. No attempt was made to contradict either father or son, or impeach either, unless the ignorance of the English language is to be con*424sidered as impeachment. The government evidently rested on the assumption that, because the witnesses were Chinese persons, they were not to be believed. I do not agree with •this.