Case: UNITED STATES v. SING TUCK OR KING DO AND THIRTY-ONE OTHERS
Abbreviation: United States v. Sing Tuck or King Do & Thirty-One
Decision Date: 1904-04-25
Docket Number: No. 591
Citation: 194 U.S. 161
Volume: 194
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: UNITED STATES v. SING TUCK OR KING DO AND THIRTY-ONE OTHERS.
Judges: Mr. Justice Peckham, dissenting. •
Pages: 161–182

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. SING TUCK OR KING DO AND THIRTY-ONE OTHERS.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 591.
Argued April 7, 1904.
Decided April 25, 1904.
It is one of the necessities of the administration of justice that all questions —even though fundamental — should be determined in an orderly way, and it is within the power of Congress to require one asserting the right to enter this country on the ground that he is a- citizen, to establish his citizenship in some reasonablé way.
A mere allegation of citizenship by a person of Chinese descent is not sufficient to. oust the inspector of jurisdiction under the alien immigrant law and allow a resort to the courts without taking the appeal to the Secretary provided for in the act, and unless such appeal has been taken and decided a writ of habeas corpus will be denied.
The facts, which involved the right to enter the United States, of certain persons of Chinese descent who claimed to be citizens of the United States, are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr.. Assistant Attorney General McReynolds for the United States:
The Circuit Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction of the appeal. The appeal should have been direct to this court. Am. Sug. Ref. Co. v. New Orleans, 181 U. S. 277, 281; Union Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71.
The direct course of all the later decisions, both English and American, is to establish the rule that probable cause must first be shown to obtain the writ of habeas corpus, Whether it be granted at common law or under the statute. Church on Habeas Corpus, § 92; Ex parte Watkins, 3. Pet. 193; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 110; Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 250; Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 301. At common law no evidence was "necessary to support the return to the writ. It was deemed to import verity until impeached. Hurd on Hab. Corps. Bk. 2, c. 3, §§ 8, 10; Church on Hab. Corps. §§ 122, 160, 170. This rule is not changed by any statute of the United States. Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 94; Holden v. Minnesota, 137 U. S. 483, 491.
The purpose of the Chinese exclusion acts and regulations adopted for making them effective is to- prevent the landing of Chinese persons in the United States, unless it affirmatively appears that they are exempt from the general provisions because officials, teachers, students, merchants, trailers, or citizens of the United States. If officers should permit entry of any one of that- race without demanding satisfactory proof of facts, they would grossly violate their duty. As to all Chinese except such as claim birth in the United States, respondents do npt deny this.
The return shows that of the 32 Chinamen examined, 27 made then no claim of birth in the United States and no show of right to enter therein. Five said they were born in the United States, but refused to give information to support such claim, and by their action made it incredible.
The original petition asserted citizenship upon information and belief. The return denied, upon information and belief, that respondents were citizens, and stated that they were alien Chinese laborers not entitled to entry. No denial was made of any facts set out in the return nor. was application made to reply thereto in'any way. Such-facts must, therefore, be taken as true and the action of the court in dismissing the writ cannot be held to be error. The very ground upon which the petition was based was denied and there was nothing to put the denial in issue.
In any view of the facts brought by the return before the court it was the clear duty of the immigration officers to detain all of the respondents, and as it was their duty so to do, such detention could not be illegal. It follows, wholly irrespective of the question as .to the finality of findings by immigration officers- under the act of 1894, that the writ in the present case was properly dismissed, no illegal detention having been shown. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 201; Wales v. Whitney, 114 U. S. 571; Ex parte Curtis, 106 U. S. 375; Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651; Carter v. McClaughry, 183 U. S. 381.
Where the law has confided to a special tribunal the authority to hear and determine certain matters arising in the course of its duties,' the decision of that tribunal, within the scope of its authority as to questions of fact is conclusive upon all others. See as to action of administrative officers in the Land Department, Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 83; Smelting Company v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636. The courts have power to grant relief when the special tribunal acts contrary to law, or possibly where a manifest wrong has been done, and only in such cases. Burfenning v. Chicago, St. Paul &c. Railroad, 163 U. S. 321, 323; School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94, 108.
If the mere unsupported statement of a Chinaman, that he was born- in the United States, entitles him to ■ enter; the Exr clusion Acts will prove farcical.
When Chinese persons present themselves for admission into the United States it is-the duty of immigration officers to pass upon their claims. If citizenship is alleged, that, like other questions of fact, must be determined by such officers. Except, possibly, in extraordinary cases- an adverse decision by the immigration officer is .final, subject to an appeal to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and it cannot be reviewed upon writ of habeas corpus. In re Moy Quong Shing, 125 Fed. Rep. 641. The Gee Fook Sing Case, 49 Fed. Rep. 146, was decided without argument. And see Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 547; Chin Bah Kan v. United States, 186 U. S. 193, 200; Japanese Emigrant Case, 189 U. S. 97.
. Mr. Robert M. Moore, with whom Mr. W. W. Cantwell' was on the brief, for respondents:
A person of Chinese- descent l^orn within the United States is . a citizen thereof and the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act do not apply to such persons. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 653.
Citizenship is a' right. Every person claiming 'it has the constitutional right to have it determined judicially in a constitutional court.
Congress cannot withdraw from judicial cognizance a matter which is the subject of a suit at common law or in equity. This right of citizenship is safe-guarded by the Constitution of the United States, which provides that “no person shall be deprived of life, - liberty or property, without due process■ of law.” See case reported in 94 Fed. Rep. 834; Gee Fook Sing v. United States, 49 Fed. Rep. 146.
Habeas corpus is the only, and is the proper, remedy. Jew Wong Loy v. United States, 91 Fed. Rep. 240; In re Jung Ah Lung, 25 Fed. Rep. 141, affirmed 124 U. S. 621. The alien act does not apply to citizens.
The pretendéd trial and adjudication by the immigrant inspector in these cases was -not' due process of law. The rules prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Commerce are arbitrary and unjust.
The legislature is not vested with the power to arbitrarily provide that any procedure.it may choose .to declare such shall be regarded as due process of law. Colon v. List, 153 N. Y. 188; Burton v. Platter, 10 U. S. App. 657.
Art. 14 of Amds. of Const, of U. S. is a restraint on the legislativo as well as on the executive and judicial, powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave Congress free to make any process “due process of law” by its mere will Meyers v. Shields, 61 Fed. Rep. 713; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366; Murray v. Hoboken Land Co., 18 How. 272; Dorman v. State, 34 Alabama, 216; In re Ziebold, 23 Fed. Rep. 791; Argument of Daniel Webster in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518.
As applied to judicial, proceedings the term “ due process of law” means a coui’se of proceeding according to those rules and principles which have been established in our system of jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights. It is imperative that there be a court of.competent jurisdiction; that the proceeding be regular and appropriate to the question involved; and that the trial be a fair one. Rees v. Watertown, 19 Wall. 107; Carr v. Brown, 38 Atl. Rep. 9; Burton v. Platter, 10 U. S. App. 657; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97; Divight v. Williams, 4 McLean, 581; Parsons v. Russell, 11 Michigan, 113; Huber v. Riley, 53 Pa. St. 112; In re Ah Lee, 5 Fed. Rep. 899; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 723; Hennessey v. Volkening, 30 Abb. N. Cas. 100; Ziegler v. So. &c. Ala. R. Co., 58 Alabama, 594; Brown v. Hummel, 6 Pa. St. 86; Jenson v. Union Pacific, 6 Utah, 253.
There was no evidence before the inspector upon which he could base a judicial determination.'
A Chinese inspector is in no sense a judicial officer and cannot be under the Constitution. See 32 Stat. c. 1021, § 23.
Section 1, Art. 3, Const. U. S. provides: “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may. from time to time ordain and establish.”
Section 2 provides: “That judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity.”

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Holmes
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of habeas corpus against a Chinese Inspector and Inspector of Immigration. It appears from his return that the Chinese persons concerned came from China by way of Canada and were seeking admission into the United States. On examination by an inspector five gave their names, stated that they were born in the United States, (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649,) and answered no further Questions. The rest gave their names and then stood mute, not even alleging citizenship. The inspector decided against their right to enter the country and informed them of their right to appeal to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. No appeal was taken, and while they were detained at a properly designated detention house for return to China a petition was filed by a lawyer purporting to act on their behalf, alleging that they all were citizens of the United States, and this writ was obtained. In the Circuit Court the detention was adjudged to be lawful, and the writ was dismissed without a trial on the merits. This decision was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals on the ground that the parties concerned were entitled to a judicial investigation of their status.
By the act of August 18, 1894, 28 Stat. 372, 390, "In every case where an alien is excluded from admission into the United States under any law or treaty now existing or hereafter made, the decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officers, if adverse to the admission of such alien, shall be final, unless reversed on appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury." The jurisdiction of the Treasury Department was transferred to the Department of .Commerce and Labor by the act of February 14, 1903, 32 Stat. 825. It was held by the Circuit Court of Appeals that the act of 1894 should, not be construed to submit the right'of a native-born citizen of the United States to return hither to the final determination of executive officers, and the conclusion was assumed to follow that these cases should have been tried on their merits. Before us it was argued that by the construction of the statute the fact of citizenship went to the jurisdiction of the immigration officers, see Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U. S. 1, 7; Milla v. Horton, 152 Massachusetts, 540, 548; and therefore that the statute did not purport to apply to one who was a citizen in fact. We are -of opinion however that, the words quoted apply to a decision on the-question of citizenship, and that, even if- it. be true that the statute* could not make that decision- final,' the consequence drawn b.y the Circuit Court of Appeals does noUfollow and is not correct.
We shall not argue the meaning, of the words of the act. That must be taken to be established. Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538, 546, 547. As to whether or not the act could make the decision of an executive officer final upon the .fact of citizenship we leave the question where we find it. The Japanese Immigrant Case, (Yamataya v. Fisher,) 189 U. S. 86, 97; Fok Yung Yo v. United States, 185 U. S. 296, 304, 305. See Chin Bak Kan v. United States, 186 U. S. 193, 200. Whatever may be the law on that point, the decisions just cited are enough to show, that it is too late to contend that the act of 1894 is void as a whole. But if the act is valid, even if ineffectual on this single point, then it points, out a mode of procedure which must be followed before there can be a resort to the courts.' In order to act at all the executive officer must decide upon the question of citizenship. If his jurisdiction is subject to being Upset, still it is necessary that he should proceed if he .decides that it exists. An appeal .is provided by the statute. The first mode of attacking his decision is by taking that appeal. It the appeal fails it then is time enough to consider whether upon a petition showing reasonable cause there ought to be a further trial upon habeas corpus.
We perfectly appreciate, while we neither countenance nor discountenance, the argument drawn from the alleged want of jurisdiction. But while the consequence of that argument if sound is that both executive officers and Secretary of Commerce and Labor are acting without authority, it is one of the necessities of the administration of justice that even fundamental questions should be determined in an orderly way. If the allegations of a petition for habeas carpus setting up want of jurisdictiQn, whether of an executive officer or of an ordinary court, are true, the petitioner theoretically is entitled to his liberty at once. Yet a summary interruption of the regular order of proceédings, by means of the writ, is not always a matter of right. A familiar illustration is that of a person imprisoned upon criminal process ' by a state court under a state law alleged to be unconstitutional. If the law is unconstitutional the prisoner is wrongfully held. Yet except under exceptional circumstances the courts of the United States do not interfere by habeas corpus. The prisoner must in the first place take his case to the highest court of the State to which he camgo, and after that he generally is left to the remedy by writ of error if he wishes to bring the case here. Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 U. S. 499; Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284. In Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U. S. 1, there was no use in delaying the issue of the writ until an appeal had been taken, because in that case there was no dispute about the facts but merely a question of law. Here the issue, if there is one; is pure matter of fact,.a claim of citizenship under circumstances and in a form naturally raising a suspicion of fraud.
Considerations similar to those which we have suggested ' lead to a further conclusion. Whatever may be the ultimate rights of a person seeking to enter the country and -alleging that he is a citizen,, it is within the power of Congress, to provide at least for a preliminary investigation by an inspector, and for' a detention of the person until he has established his citizenship in some reasonable way. If the person satisfies the inspector, he is allowed to enter the country without further trial. Now, when these Chinese, having that opportuntiy, saw fit to refuse it, we think an ádditional reason was given for not allowing a habeas corpus at that stage. The detention during the time necessary for investigation was not. unlawful, even if all of these parties were citizens of the United States and were not attempting to upset the inspection machinery by a transparent device. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 235. They were offered a way to prove .their alleged citizenship and to be set at large, which would be sufficient for most people who liad a case and which would' relieve the courts. If they saw fit to refuse that way, they properly were held down strictly to their technical rights.
But it is said that if, under any circumstances, the question of citizenship could be left to the final decision of an executive officer, the Chinese Regulations made under- the statutes by the Department of Commerce and Labor are such that they do not allow a citizen due process of law, and the same argument is urged in favor of the right to decline to take any part in such proceedings from the outset. The rules objected to require the officer to prevent communication with the parties other than by officials under his control, and to have them examined promptly touching their right to admission. The examination is to be apart from the public, in the presence of the government officials and such witnesses only as the examining officer shall designate. This last is the provision especially stigmatized. It is said that the parties are allowed to produce only such witnesses as are designated, by the officer. But that is a plain perversion of the meaning of the words*, If the witnesses referred to are not merely witnesses to the examination, if they are witnesses in the cause, still the provision only excludes such witnesses, at the discretion of the officer pending the examination of the party concerned — natural precaution in this class of cases, the reasonableness of which does not need to be explained. It is common in ordinary trials.. No right is given to the officer to exercise any control or choice as to the witnesses to be heard, and no such choice was attempted in fact. On the contrary, the parties were told that if they could produce two witnesses*who, knew that they had the right to enter, their testimony would be taken and carefully considered, and various other attempts were made to induce the suggestion of any evidence or help to establish the parties' case, but they stood mute.. The separate, examination is another reasonable precaution, and it is required to take place promptly to avoid the hardship of a long detention. In case of appeal counsel are permitted to examine the evidence, Rule 7, and it is implied that new evidence, briefs, affidavits and statements may be submitted, all of which can be forwarded with the appeal. Rule 9. The whole scheme is intended to give as fair a chance to prove a right to enter the country as the necessarily summary character of the proceedings will permit.
We are of opinion that the attempt to disregard and override the provisions of the statutes and the rules of the department and to swamp the courts by a resort to them in the first instance must fail. We may add that, even if it is beyond the power of Congress to make the decision of the department final upon , the question of citizenship, we agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals that a petition, for habeas corpus ought not to be entertained, unless the court is satisfied that the petitioner can make out at least a prima fade case. A mere allegation of citizenship is not enough. But, before the courts can be called upon, the preliminary sifting process provided by the statutes must be gone through with. Whether after that a further trial may be had we do not decide.
Judgment reversed.