Statement of the Case.

Missouri, 384, 388, 389. See also Howell v. Maglesdorf, 33 Kansas, 194.

The cases in which judgments against a territorial and municipal corporation have been enforced against its inhabitants, either by direct levy of execution on their property, according to common law or ancient usage, as in New England, or by mandamus to levy a tax to pay the judgment, pursuant to express statute, as in Missouri, have no bearing upon this case. Bloomfield v. Charter Oak Bank, 121 U. S. 121, 129, and cases cited; State v. Rainey, 74 Missouri, 229.

Judgment affirmed.

LAU OW BEW v. UNITED STATES.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

NINTH CIRCUIT.

No. 1458. Argued January 14, 1892. Decided March 14, 1892.

By section 6 of the act of March 3, 1891, establishing Circuit Courts of Appeals, 26 Stat. 828, c. 517, the appellate jurisdiction not vested in this court was vested in the court created by that act, and the entire jurisdiction was distributed.

The words" unless otherwise provided by law" in the clause in that section which provides that the Circuit Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction ' in all cases other than those provided for in the preceding section of this act, unless otherwise provided by law" were inserted in order to guard against implied repeals, and are not to be construed as referring to prior laws only.

It is competent for this court by certiorari to direct any case to be certified by the Circuit Courts of Appeals, whether its advice is requested or not, except those which may be brought here by appeal or writ of error. Section 6 of the Chinese Restriction act of May 6, 1882, 22 Stat. 58, c. 126, as amended by the act of July 5, 1884, 23 Stat. 115, c. 220, does not apply to Chinese merchants, already domiciled in the United States, who, having left the country for temporary purposes, animo revertendi, seek to reenter it on their return to their business and their homes.

THIS is a writ of certiorari for the review of a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the

Statement of the Case.

Northern District of California, in a case of habeas corpus, which determined that Lau Ow Bew, the appellant, is a Chinese person forbidden by law to land within the United States, and has no right to be or remain therein, and ordered that he be deported out of the country, and transported to the port in China whence he came.

The proceedings in the Circuit Court are set out in the application for the certiorari, as reported in 141 U. S. 583. The case was heard and determined in that court upon an agreed statement of facts, as follows:

"It is hereby stipulated and agreed that the following are the facts herein:

"1st. That the said Lau Ow Bew is now on board the SS. Oceanic, which arrived in the port of San Francisco, State of California, on the 11th day of August, A.D. 1891, from Hong Kong, and is detained and confined thereon by Captain Smith, the master thereof.

"2d. That the said passenger is now and for seventeen years last past has been a resident of the United States and domiciled therein.

"3d. That during all of said time the said passenger has been engaged in the wholesale and importing mercantile business in the city of Portland, State of Oregon, under the firm name and style of Hop Chong & Co.

"4th. That said firm is worth $40,000, and said passenger has a one-fourth interest therein, in addition to other properties.

"5th. That said firm does a business annually of $100,000, and pays annually to the United States government large sums of money, amounting to many thousands of dollars, as duties upon imports.

"6th. That on the 30th day of September, A.D. 1890, the said passenger departed from this country temporarily on a visit to his relatives in China, with the intention of returning as soon as possible to this country, and returned to this country by the steamship Oceanic on the 11th day of August, A.D.

1891.

"7th. That at the time of his departure he procured satis

Statement of the Case.

factory evidence of his status in this country as a merchant, and on his return hereto he presented said proofs to the collector of the port of San Francisco, but said collector, while acknowledging the sufficiency of said proofs and admitting that the said passenger was a merchant domiciled herein, refused to permit the said passenger to land on the sole ground that the said passenger failed and neglected to pro. duce the certificate of the Chinese government mentioned in section 6 of the Chinese Restriction Act of May 6, 1882, as amended by the act of July 5, 1884."

The Circuit Court rendered judgment September 14, 1891, (47 Fed. Rep. 578,) which, the case having been carried by appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, was on the 7th day of October, 1891, affirmed. (47 Fed. Rep. 641.)

On November 16, 1891, this court, upon the application of appellant, ordered that a writ of certiorari issue to the Circuit Court of Appeals requiring it to certify the case up for review and determination, under section six of the act to establish Circuit Courts of Appeals, approved March 3, 1891. (26 Stat. 826, 828, c. 517.)

The fifth article of the treaty concluded July 28, 1868, between the United States and China, known as the "Burlingame Treaty," (16 Stat. 739,) declares that:

"The United States of America and the Emperor of China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects, respectively, from the one country to the other, for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents."

Article VI of that treaty is as follows:

"Citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, or exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. And, reciprocally, Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States, shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and ex

VOL. CXLIV-4

Statement of the Case.

emptions in respect to travel or residence, as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. But nothing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization upon citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States."

A supplementary treaty was concluded November 17, 1880, (22 Stat. 826,) which recites, among other things, in its preamble that, "whereas the Government of the United States, because of the constantly increasing immigration of Chinese laborers to the territory of the United States, and the embarrassments consequent upon such immigration, now desires to negotiate a modification of the existing treaties which shall not be in direct contravention of their spirit ;" and articles I and II of which are as follows:

"Whenever in the opinion of the Government of the United States, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect the interests of that country, or to endanger the good order of the said country or of any locality within the territory thereof, the Government of China agrees that the Government of the United States may regulate, limit or suspend such coming or residence; but may not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation or suspension shall be reasonable and shall apply only to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes not being included in the limitations. Legislation taken in regard to Chinese laborers will be of such a character only as is necessary to enforce the regulation, limitation or suspension of immigration, and immigrants shall not be subject to personal maltreatment or abuse.

"Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers, students, merchants or from curiosity, together with their body and household servants, and Chinese laborers who are now in the United States shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation."

The sixth section of the act of May 6, 1882, entitled "An

Statement of the Case.

act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese," (22 Stat. 58, c. 126,) as amended by the act of July 5, 1884, (23 Stat. 115, c. 220,) the matter inserted in amendment being italicized, and the matter stricken out being in brackets, reads as follows:

"SEC. 6. That in order to the faithful execution of [articles one and two of the treaty in] the provisions of this act [before mentioned,] every Chinese person, other than a laborer, who may be entitled by said treaty [and] or this act to come within the United States, and who shall be about to come to the United States, shall obtain the permission of and be identified as so entitled by the Chinese government, or of such other foreign government of which at the time such Chinese person shall be a subject, in each case [such identity] to be evidenced by a certificate issued [under the authority of said] by such government, which certificate shall be in the English language [or (if not in the English language) accompanied by a translation into English, stating such right to come] and shall show such permission, with the name of the permitted person in his or her proper signature, and which certificate shall state the individual, family, and tribal name in full, title or official rank, if any, the age, height, and all physical peculiarities, former and present occupation or profession, when and where and how long pursued, and place of residence [in China] of the person to whom the certificate is issued, and that such person is entitled [conformably to the treaty in] by this act [mentioned] to come within the United States. If the person so applying for a certificate shall be a merchant, said certificate shall, in addition to above requirements, state the nature, character and estimated value of the business carried on by him prior to and at the time of his application as aforesaid: Provided, That nothing in this act nor in said treaty shall be construed as embracing within the meaning of the word 'merchant' hucksters, peddlers or those engaged in taking, drying or otherwise preserving shell or other fish for home consumption or exportation. If the certificate be sought for the purpose of travel for curiosity, it shall also state whether the applicant intends to pass through or travel within the