'riather,,'snd that the concession to the merchant of the right to enter the United States, and dwell therein at pleasure, fairly ,construed, does include his lvifeand minor children; particularly when it is remembered that such concession is accompanied ,with a declaration to the effect that, in such entry and sojourn in the country, he shall be entitled to all the rights and pri\lileges of. a subject of Great Britain or a citizen of France. There is nothing in the act of 1884 that indicates an intention on the part of congreSs to restrain the privileges conceded to Chinese merchants, by :thisarticle':of the treaty. It only adds a rule or measure of evidence by which the, fact of being such merchants may be conclusivelyestablished. ,. InrlU Tung Yeong, 9'Sawy. 620,19 Fed. Rep. 184, Judge HOFFMAN held that the minor children of Chinese merchants were entitled to admission into the country; either, with the father or on being sent for by him, on the ground, that they were not laborers, and said: '. "Ibwas not without satiSfaction that I found there was no requirement of tbelaw: which would me to deny to a parent the custody of his child, and to se,nd the latterback,across t/1e ocean to the country, from which he came)' , It wasJIll,\deiuFl'lbruary, 1884, while the actrequiring the production of a certificate from" every Chinese person" seekthe JJnited,States w&s'notpassed until July 5, 1884, and it is not au tlwrity" on, the question of whether th.e words" every , ,Ohinese person, "insootiop 60f the,llct, are limited to teachers, students, Dlerchants, anq dQ,not include their wives and children. But it is in favoljQftl)e conclusion that the children ofa Chinese Qfthe treaty of 1880, are entitled to admission , jnto·tjhe XJnited father or after hillJi and, if a child, why not his wife? ' Myqonclusion is tha,t \lndet: the treaty and statute, taken together, a ., who is entitled to come into and dwell in the United States is to bring with him, and have with him, his wife anq children. ,The company ,oithe one, and the care and custody oithe bis ,by natural right; and be ought not to be deprived of either, unless the intention of congress to do so. is clear and unmistak,: able. , , The petitioners are restrained of their liberty. and are entitled to be discharged frOIll,Qustody; and it is so ordered.
" ,: : , : , j
(Of.rauU Oourt, D. Oregon. May 18, 189O.)
A .propeeding before a district judge, to procure a remission of .. 1I.ne, penalty, or forfeiture, incurred under the customs revenue law, does notinclude the CII88 of .. tonnage tax, alleged to have been levied in excess of the lawful rate.
,(SyUabmlYy. the Oonrt.)
0" E. S.
Wood, for petitioners. P. May8, for the United States·
. This is a petition by the consignee and agent of the Britishshlp Largo Law, to have the facts ascertained and transmitted to the of the treasury, so as to procure a remission or mitigation of .a ,certain tonnage tax, amounting to &793.50, imposed on said vessel by the collectorof this p o r t . · , BrieJlY,the case as stated in the petition is this: In October, 1889, the Largo Law entered the port of San Diego, Cal., with.!Io cargo from London, consisting partly of cement, of which 3,360 "'!'lre destined for this port. For the sake of convenience, as it is alleged, the duty on the whole of the cement was paid at San Diego, from which place the vessel then proceeded to this port with the cement on .board here, where the collector imposed a tonnage tax on the vessel of 50 cents per ton, under section 4219, of the Revised Statutes, on the ground that she had on board goods,-cement "taken on in one district to be delivered hl another district,"-which action of the collector was on November 3, 1889, affirmed by the commissioner of navigation. Notice. of the application was given to the collector and district attorney, the latter of whom appeared and filed a demurrer to the petition. The petition appears to have been filed under section 5292 of the vised Statutes. But that section has been superseded by section 17 of the act of June 22, 1874, (18 St. 186.) However, so far as this case is concerned, the sections are substantially the same. Said sectjon '17 provides:
"That.whenever, for an alleged violation of the customs revenue laws, any who shall be charged with having incurred any fine, penalty, forfeiture, ... ... ... shall present his petition to the judge of the district in which the alleged violation occurred, ... ... ... setting forth truly and particularly the facts and circumstances of the case, and praying for relief, such judge shall, if the case in his judgment reqUires, proceed to inquire, in a summary manner. into the circumstances of the case, at such reasonable time as may be fixed by him for that purpose, of which the district I&ttorney and the collector shall be notified by the petitioner, in order toat they may attend and show cause why the petition should be refused...
The case made by the petition is not one for the remission or mitigation of a fine, penalty, or forfeiture incurred by the petitioner, or any one else. A fine, penalty, or forfeiture can only be incurred by the do-v .42F.no.7-26