FEDERAL REPORTER ,. vol. ·48.
the rulings of the supreme court,above quoted, be implied... .. . . ' , .. Nothing is said about notice of the preference to other creditors or abQllt the recording oftheinstrument,. when there is one by which the preference is given. The preference may be by procuring or suffering an attachment or seizure ofthe debtor's property by payment, by pledge, by assignment, transfer"orconveyance, directly or indirectly, absolutely or 1.0 other creditors could be given by recording single instaQce of a. preference by means of .a conveyance absolQw,Qr conditional. ,If it be by paymentor by assignment or pledge itwillhMlllly be claimed .that an agreement not to make it public would prevent the running of. the four months. It would be very unjust to apply anifferellt rule to the creditor who receives a conveyance or mortgage. 'l'hese liild other'c!?nsiderationsseem to ha"e led congress to fix an or.iilthe language of Mr. Justice MILLER, they saw fit to "adopt a conventional rule to determine the validity of these preferences. n I am constrained; therefore, notwithstanding the force of Judge DILLON'S reasoning in Harris v. Bank, to concur in the opinion of disttibt judge. The decree of the district court dismissing the bill is .
In re Wo
(DI8trfct Oourt, N. D. California. Angust16,l888.)
, The'Cliinese restriction aoto! 1884, § 6, pro'vides that any Chinese person other than a entitled. by trlla1<.v to enter tbE\,United States. sMU hay') a oertificate of bis i!lsned by the Chinese. gover'nment, and vi/!M the diplomatic rel?reUnited States, <ltc" which:"sball be the'ilole evidence permiS!llble !lame to a right to entry .into on the pan.,of ,the perso1.1 t4e Vnired States." Held, tnat a person who fail/! to produce such a certi11catlii llBllnot establisb a rign\ tocnter 'by /my other evidence.
OF ENTRY-OERTIFIC.4.TE Oll' ,IDENTITY.
Petition,for Habeas C01j?U8 to relelisea Chinese person, who has been denied thei r,ioght''to'.enter the United states. Philip. Teare, for 'petitioner. '
JolvntB.Carey,U.S. Atty.· , andOharles L.Weller,Asst. U. S. Atty.
HOFFMAN,J. The petitioner claims the right to land in the United States on the'gtound that she is the wife of a Chinese actor, and therefore doesndtcotrie within the prohibition of the treaty and of the act of congress which forbids the coming into the United States of Chinese laborers. ' By the flixth section of the amended restriction act of 1884 it is prov:ided! in substance, that' "EveryOhlrteseperson other than a laborer, who may be entitled by said treaty or tbYs to come' within the United States, and who may be about to come to the United States, shall obtaIn the permission of and be identified as
I;IO:lilPtitllld by the Chinel\egoyernment. etc.; in each case be evidenced by a certificate i!lsne4 by, such government" which certificate shaH be in the English etc. ",,' *, * The certificate provided for in this act, and the identity of the person named therein, shall, before such person goes on board of any vessel to proceed to the United States, be vised by the indorsement of the diplomatic representatives of the, United States, in the foreign country from which said certificate issues, or of the consular representatives. etc. * * * Such certificate, vised as aforesaid, shaH be prima facie evidence of the facts set forth therein. and shall be produced to the collector of customs in tile' ptih of the disttict of the United States at which the person named therein shall arri've, and afterwards produced to tbe proper 8uthor,itie!l of tbeUnited· States, whenever la\vfully demandetl,an4;l shall be tbe sole evi. dence permi&llmleon the part of person so producing the,same to establish , a rigl1t to entry 10t,0 the United States."
No such certificate has been produced or was obtained by the petitioner in this case. Ris conte.nded on her part that the certificate is declared to be the sole ev.idence permissible on the part of :the,p.erson so producing the same, and that, inapmuch as this person haB not produced any certificate, parol testimony is admissible to show that she does not belong to the prohibited dass; The language of the act iscertaiuly infelicitous, but its meaning is obvious., It is that the certificate, is required to be produced oy all Chinese persons, other than laborers, claiming the right to enter this country j and such certificate is to ,be the sole Ijvidence of their right to land. Unless, therefore, the whole 66ction is to be disregarded" and the obvious intention of congress frustrated, the ,certificate must in all'cases be exacted.· To say that because the applicant has utterly neglEJCted to comply with the law, and has produced no certificate, therefore her right to land may be established by other evidence; would be' 'absurWeonClusion, founded upon the mere letter of statute, lirid in obVIOUS contraventidn Qf its spirit and meaning.' . The 'petitioner
CRIMINAL LAW-.TVRISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS-ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY.
Const. U, S. art. 1. § 8. cVl/i, congress the exclusive over' a'di places purchased by the United ,States, with the consent of the state in which the same are sitnated, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals., dock, yards, atld Otber needfulbulldlngs, confers no jurisdiction upon the federal courts to try a person for a petty larceny committed in the National Cemetery on tlle Arlir;.gton estate, which was Ilurchased by the United States at a tu-sale" without consent of the state of Virginia. ,."
At Law. Information against Dennis Penn for a petty larceny 'committed in the<NaMonal Cem'etc;Jry on the Arlington estate, Alexandria V &., ,On plea to the jurisdiction, and demurrer Plea silstained.