IMMIGRATION, CHINESE. 



389 



brought from a foreign port, the port of shipment is 

 always understoodj and not any intermediate port at 

 which the vessel bnnging the goods may have stopped. 

 This is the common understanding of the terms by 

 merchants, and is the interpretation given to them by 

 the courts. They must be held to have the same 

 meaning when used with reference to the importation 

 of persons from a foreign port, as when used with 

 reference to the importation of goods. The eighth 

 section of the act confirms this view, if it needed any 

 confirmation ; that requires the master of the vessel to 

 deliver a list of Chinese passengers "taken on board 

 his vessel at any foreign port or place." It is the 

 laborers thus taken on board that the master is pro- 

 hibited from bringing into the United States. 



Any other construction would compel a master of 

 an American vessel, leaving a port of the United 

 States with a Chinese seaman or waiter, to send him 

 adrift at a foreign port, at which the vessel might 

 touch, and prohibit the master from bringing him 

 back in accordance with the bond which he is required 

 by existing law to execute. (U. S. Kevised Statutes, 

 section 4,576.) 



The object of the act of Congress was to prevent the 

 further immigration of Chinese laborers to the United 

 States, not to expel those already here. It even pro- 

 vides for the return of such laborers leaving for a 

 temporary period, upon their obtaining certificates of 

 identification. It was deemed wise policy to prevent 

 the coming among us of a class of persons, who, by 

 their dissimilarity of manners, habits, religion, and 

 physical characteristics, can not assimilate with our 

 people, but must forever remain a distinct race t creat- 

 ing oy their presence enmities and conflicts, disturb- 

 ing to the peace and injurious to the interests of the 

 country. But it was not thought that the few thou- 

 sands now here, scattered, as they must soon be, 

 throughout all the States, would sensibly disturb our 

 peace or aifect our civilization. 



This case is reported in 13 "Federal Report- 

 er," 286. 



CASE OF AH TIE. In the case of Ah Tie and 

 others, brought before the court at the same 

 time, the facts were substantially the same, 

 with one exception, as in the case of Ah Sing. 

 Ah Tie and others were seamen on the same 

 steamer during the same voyage. The distinc- 

 tion between the two cases was, that at Syd- 

 ney the petitioners on several occasions, by 

 permission of the captain, went ashore, and 

 remained a few hours, without, however, in- 

 tending to leave the service of the steamer. 

 "This fact," said Justice Field, "is the only 

 one distinguishing this case from that of Ah 

 Sing. We there held that the prohibition upon 

 the master of a vessel, contained in the Act of 

 Congress, to bring within the United States 

 from a foreign port or place any Chinese la- 

 borer, was intended to prevent the importation 

 of such laborers from the foreign port or place 

 laborers who there embarked on the vessel 

 and did not apply to his bringing a Chinese 

 laborer already on board of his vessel touching 

 at the foreign port or place. We also held 

 that, while on board the American vessel, the 

 laborer was within the jurisdiction of the 

 United States, and did not lose, by his employ- 

 ment, the right of residence here previously 

 acquired under the treaty with his country. 



" The status of the petitioners, and their re- 

 lation to the vessel, were not changed in any 

 respect by the fact that they were permitted 



by the captain to land for a few hours at the 

 port of Sydney. They were bound, by their 

 contract of shipment, to return with the ves- 

 sel ; and the captain was bound to bring them 

 back. He could not have forced them ashore 

 in a foreign port; nor could he have aban- 

 doned them there. Had he done either of 

 these things, he would have rendered himself 

 liable to criminal prosecution. ... A Chinese 

 laborer on an American vessel can not be held 

 to lose his residence here, so as to come within 

 the purview of the act, by such temporary en- 

 try upon a foreign country as may be caused 

 by the arrival of the vessel on her outward 

 voyage at her port of destination, or her touch- 

 ing at any intermediate port in going or re- 

 turning, or her putting into a foreign port in 

 stress of weather. And we should hesitate to 

 say that it would be lost by the laborer passing 

 through a foreign country in going to different 

 parts of the United States by any of the direct 

 routes, though we are told by the counsel of 

 the respondent that a Chinese laborer having 

 taken a ticket by the overland railroad from 

 this place to New York, by the Central Michi- 

 gan route, which passes from Detroit to Niag- 

 ara Falls through Canada, was stopped at Ni- 

 agara and sent back, as within the prohibition 

 of the Act of Congress, and on attempting to 

 retrace his steps was again stopped at Detroit. 

 A construction which would justify such a pro- 

 ceeding can not fail to bring odium upon the 

 act, and invite efforts for its repeal. The wis- 

 dom of its enactment will be better vindicated 

 by a construction less repellent to our sense of 

 justice and right." (13 "Federal Reporter," 

 291.) 



CASE OF Low YAM CHOW. In the case of 

 Low Yam Chow (13 " Federal Reporter," 605), 

 the essential facts were these : The petitioner 

 was a Chinese merchant, and not a laborer. He 

 was for ten years engaged in business in Peru, 

 and afterward established himself at Panama. 

 For the past five years he has also been a mem- 

 ber of the mercantile firm of Chow, Kee & Co., 

 in San Francisco. On July 31st he left Pan- 

 ama by steamer for San Francisco, where he 

 arrived August 17th. He was not allowed to 

 land, because he had no certificate. These 

 facts raised two questions: First, whether 

 Chinese merchants, who resided, on the pas- 

 sage of the Act of Congress, in other countries 

 than China, on arriving on a vessel in a port of 

 the United States, are required to produce cer- 

 tificates of the Chinese Government, establish- 

 ing their character as merchants, as a condition 

 of their being allowed to land ; and, second, 

 whether their character as such merchants can 

 be established by parol proof. The Circuit 

 Court of the United States in California de- 

 cided the first of these questions in the nega- 

 tive, and the second in the affirmative. It 

 holds that only laborers, and not merchants, 

 are prohibited from entering the United States, 

 andthat a certificate is required only of those 

 coming from their "place of residence in. 



