United States v. Bow

D. Vermont

United States v. Bow

139 F. 56, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130

CourtDistrict Court, D. Vermont

DecidedJune 9, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 F. 56 (United States v. Bow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bow, 139 F. 56, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130 (D. Vt. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

The appellant is of.the Chinese race, born in China. From -1892 to 1898 he appears to have been a partner in the firm of Quong Ying Lung, doing Chinese grocery business, in the capital stock of which his share was $500. Thus he was a merchant, within the definition of the Chinese exclusion acts (Act Sept. 13, 1888, c. 1015, 25 Stat. 476 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1312]), before, during, and for a long time after the time in which Chinese laborers were required to register in order to be entitled to remain in the United States. Tom Hong v. U. S., 193 U. S. 517, 24 Sup. Ct. 517, 48 L. Ed. 772. After the expiration of that time there was no law requiring registration of laborers for lawfully remaining in the United States. When he ceased to be a merchant in 1898 he became a laborer, within the definition of the same acts, and, although he has remained such ever since, he has been domiciled lawfully here. Since then he has not been subject to deportation, and is now entitled to be discharged from these proceedings, according to that decision.

Appellant discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WHEELER, District Judge.

The appellant is of.the Chinese race, born in China. From -1892 to 1898 he appears to have been a partner in the firm of Quong Ying Lung, doing Chinese grocery business, in the capital stock of which his share was $500. Thus he was a merchant, within the definition of the Chinese exclusion acts (Act Sept. 13, 1888, c. 1015, 25 Stat. 476 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1312]), before, during, and for a long time after the time in which Chinese laborers were required to register in order to be entitled to remain in the United States. Tom Hong v. U. S., 193 U. S. 517, 24 Sup. Ct. 517, 48 L. Ed. 772. After the expiration of that time there was no law requiring registration of laborers for lawfully remaining in the United States. When he ceased to be a merchant in 1898 he became a laborer, within the definition of the same acts, and, although he has remained such ever since, he has been domiciled lawfully here. Since then he has not been subject to deportation, and is now entitled to be discharged from these proceedings, according to that decision.

Appellant discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 F. 56, 1905 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bow-vtd-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack