Fok Yung Yo v. United States, 185 U.S. 296 (1902)

This was a petition to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition represented that the petitioner was a citizen of the Empire of China, and a resident of Guatemala in the Republic of Mexico, and was travelling to that place when interrupted in his journey as afterwards described; that on August 24,1901, he purchased, for the sum of 183 Mexican dollars, from the agent of the Japanese steamship company of the Toyo Kisen Kaisha at Hong Kong in China, passage thence to San Jose de Guatemala in Mexico, and received from said agent a ticket for passage on the steamship Nippon Maru to the port of San Francisco, and an order upon the San Francisco agent of said company for a steerage ticket from San Francisco to San Jose de Guatemala ; that upon arriving in the port of San Francisco he was, on September 19,1901, examined by a customs inspector, his baggage and private papers opened, and his p. 297person searched; that, after the examination of the petitioner, the collector of customs at the port made an order of deportation, denying him the privilege of transit, and he was, by virtue of that order, detained by the agent of the steamship company in a frame building on the Pacific Mail dock at San Francisco, and, unless released by the court, would be deported and sent back to China; that the petitioner was not making application to enter the United States, or to pass in transit through the territory thereof, but was merely a passenger en route for a foreign port, and touching at the port of San Francisco while on his journey along the usual course of travel, and for the purpose of transshipping to another vessel; that the order under which he was held was illegal and void, and not authorized by any law of the United States, or by any treaty between the United States and the Empire of China; and that the collector of customs had no authority under the law to examine or to confine the petitioner.

0 China. He arrived at the port of San Francisco on apanese steamship Nippon Maru, the manifest of which Me states that he intended to go to San Jose de Guatemala. i toner herein also alleges that that was his intended p. 298destination. The collector of customs at the port of San Francisco did, on September 23, 1901, deny the petitioner the privilege of further pursuing his journey to his alleged point of destination. The petitioner has a ticket, or an order for a ticket, for a through passage from Hong Kong, China, to San Jose de Guatemala by steamer. The petitioner is now held by W. H. Avery, agent for the Japanese steamship company, by virtue of an order issued by the collector of customs for the port of San Francisco, directing him to retain the person of the petitioner in his custody, and deport him to China.”

The facts upon which the parties submitted the case to the decision of the court below do not include, on the one hand, the statement of the petition that the petitioner was examined by a customs inspector, his baggage and papers opened, and his person searched; nor, on the other hand, the statements in the intervention of the United States, that the petitioner was a laborer by occupation, and that the decision of the collector for his detention and deportation was made after due and careful investigation, and for the reason that he was satisfied that the petitioner did not intend in good faith to continue his voyage through the territory of the United States to the Republic o Mexico. But the facts agreed are simply that the petitioner was a subject of the Empire of China, arriving at the port of San Francisco, whose intended destination, as appeared by the mam fest of the vessel in which he arrived, and by his own allega tion, was San Jose de Guatemala in the Republic of Mexico, and who had a ticket, or an order for a ticket, for a throug passage from Hong Kong, China, to San Jose de Guatemala by p. 299steamer; and that the collector of customs at San Francisco denied him the privilege of further pursuing his journey to his alleged point of destination, and issued an order directing him to be detained and deported to China.

By regulations of Secretary Folger of January 23, 1883, it was provided that “ where a Chinese consul resides at the port of landing or entrance into the United States by any Chinese a orer claiming to be merely in transit through the territory o the United States in the course of a journey to or from other countries, the certificate of such Chinese consul, identifying the arer by name, height, age, etc., so far as practicable, and showt e place and date of his arrival, the place at which he is to eaJe the United States, the date when his journey is to begin, an t at it is to be continuous and direct, shall be accepted as p. 300prima facie evidence; ” that, “ in the absence of such certificate, other competent evidence to show the identity of the person, and the fact that a i)ona fide transit only is intended, may be received; ” and that “ the production of a through ticket across the whole territory of the United States intended to be traversed may be received as competent proof, and should be exhibited to the collector and verified by him. Such tickets and all other evidence presented must be so stamped or marked and dated by the customs officer as to prevent their use a second time.”

By article 3 of the treaty between the United States and China p. 301of March 17,1894, it is “ agreed that Chinese laborers shall continue to enjoy the privilege of transit across the territory of the United States in the course of their journey to or from other countries, subject to such regulations by the Government of the United States as may be necessary to prevent said privilege of transit from being abused.” 28 Stat. 1211. That article was also in the unratified treaty of 1888.

The applicant in each case, or some responsible person ls (or her) behalf, or the transportation company whose p. 302through ticket he (or she) holds, shall furnish to the said collector of customs a bond in a penal sum of not less than $500, conditioned for applicant’s continuous transit through, and actual departure from, the United States within a reasonable time, not exceeding twenty days from the date of arrival at said port.”

In short, the privilege of transit, although it is one that should not be withheld without good cause, is nevertheless conceded only on such terms as the particular Government prescribes m p. 303view of the well-being of its own people. If then these regulations have the force of law, they bind the courts.

That act came under consideration in Lem Moon Sing y. Umted States, 158 U. S. 538. Petitioner contended that while the immigration officers had authority to exclude aliens from coming into the United States, yet if an alien was entitled of right to enter the country, and was nevertheless excluded by such officers, the latter exceeded their jurisdiction, and the courts might intervene; but Mr. Justice Harlan, speaking for the court, said: “ That view, if sustained, would bring into the courts every case of an alien who claimed the right to come into the United States under some law or treaty, but was prevented from doing so by the executive branch of the Government. This would defeat the manifest purpose of Congress m committing to subordinate immigration officers and to the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive authority to determine whether a particular alien seeking admission into this country belongs to the class entitled by some law or treaty to come into t e country, or to a class forbidden to enter the United States. p. 305Under that interpretation of the act of 1894 the provision that the decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officers should be final, unless reversed on appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury, would be of no practical value.”