Wong Wing v. United States

163 U.S. 228 (1896)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

By the act of September 13, 1888, c. 1015, it was provided: 'That any Chinese person, or person of Chinese descent, found unlawfully in the United States or its Territories, may be arrested upon a warrant issued upon a complaint under oath, filed by any party on behalf of the United States, by any justice, judge, or commissioner of any United States Court, returnable before any justice, judge or commissioner of a United States court, or before any United States court, and when convicted, upon a hearing, and found and adjudged to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States, such person shall be removed from the United States to the country whence he came.' The first section of the act of October 1, 1888, c. states: 'That from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any Chinese laborer who shall at any time heretofore have been, or who may now or hereafter be, a resident within the United States, and who shall have departed, or shall depart therefrom, and shall not have returned before the passage of this act, to return to, or remain in, the United States.' The act of August 18, 1894, c. stated: '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 validity of these acts was at issue because they were alleged to be in conflict with existing treaties between the United States and China and because to deport a Chinaman who had, under previous laws, a right to return to the United States, was a punishment which could not be inflicted except by judicial sentence. P is a subject of the Chinese Government, with which the Government of the United States has relations of peace and amity. This Chinaman and three other persons of the same race and country were in the month of July 1892, found within the city of Detroit, in the Eastern District of Michigan, and upon the complaint of the deputy collector of customs at that place, made to a United States Circuit Court commissioner for that district, that they were unlawfully within the limits of the United States, a warrant for their arrest was issued by the commissioner, and they were accordingly arrested and taken before him for inquiry into the correctness of the charge. The commissioner held that the Chinese persons named were unlawfully within the United States, and he judged that they should be imprisoned at hard labor in the house of correction at Detroit, in the Eastern District of Michigan, for a period of sixty days from and including that date, and that at the expiration of that period, they should be removed from the United States to China. P and others immediately applied for a writ of habeas corpus, to be released from their imprisonment and restraint of their liberty, alleging that the same were unlawful, without warrant of law, and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States. Ps alleged that the proceedings and conviction were wholly without jurisdiction on the part of the commissioner and without warrant and authority of law. The court ordered that the writ of habeas corpus be discharged and that the persons arrested be remanded to the custody of Nicholson, the keeper of the District house of correction, to serve their original sentences. Ps appealed because they claim their commitment and imprisonment are unlawful and without warrant of law, and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States; that the proceedings and conviction of Ps before the commissioner were without jurisdiction on his part, and without warrant or authority of law; that for these and other reasons appearing upon the face of the proceedings Ps, feeling themselves aggrieved by the judgment and decision of the Circuit Court, appealed therefrom to the Supreme Court of the United States, and pray that the appeal may be allowed, and, in accordance with the rules and practice of that court, pending the appeal they may be admitted to bail, which prayer was granted.