[Inclosure.]
Mr. Folger to
the collector of customs.
Treasury Department,
Washington, March 14,
1884.
Sir: I transmit herewith a copy of a letter
of March 7, 1884, from the Chinese minister to the Secretary of
State, with copies of inclosures numbered 1 and 2, the one dated
February 18, 1884, the other dated March 7, 1884, purporting to have
been issued from your office. This Department has not been
officially notified by you of the issuance of the orders contained
in said inclosures. Assuming them to be correctly set forth, and
referring to the sixth section of the act of Congress approved May
6, 1882, to “execute certain treaty stipulations relating to
Chinese,” it appears to this Department that your announcement to
the Chinese consul-general that any certificates or passports issued
by his office after this date would not be regarded by the customs
officers upon presentation is not in accordance with the provisions
of said sixths section, which provides that “every Chinese person
other than a laborer who may be entitled by said treaty and this act
to come within the United States shall be identified as so entitled
by the Chinese Government in each case, such identity to be
evidenced by a certificate issued under the authority of said
Government. * * * Such certificate shall be prima
facie evidence of the fact set forth therein,” &c.
It has been repeatedly held by the courts, notably by Justice Deady,
in the United States district court of Oregon, in the case of Ho
King, that the right of Chinese other than laborers to come into the
United States does not depend upon the production of any certificate
whatever, but that the want of such certificate may be supplied by
satisfactory evidence aliunde. For the
convenience of Chinese persons not laborers who desire to come into
the United States, the sixth section above cited provides that a
certificate in the form prescribed, issued under the authority of
the Chinese Government, stating that such person is entitled to come
into the United States, shall be prima facie
evidence of the fact set forth therein.
The Department sees no objection to your issuing such certificates as
you propose to any proper persons who may apply for them, but it
regards certificates issued by the Chinese consul-general at San
Francisco as issued under the authority of the Chinese Government,
and, if in conformity with said sixth section, entitled to be
treated as prima facie evidence. Such
certificate, however, is not conclusive, and if there is any reason
in any case to suspect fraud or imposition, the collector will make
a rigid examination and refuse to allow the passenger to land until
satisfactory evidence is produced. This conclusion is in accordance
with the opinion of the Department of October 25, 1882, S. S. 5446,
and with the opinion of Justice Deady above cited.
You will govern your course accordingly.
Very respectfully,
