Cestui

pages 162, 1057. Neither the origin nor the pronunciation of this term is given in the law dictionai'ies or glossaries, and in but two of the popular dictionaries (both of them English) is anything said on either subject; while the original plural form is not stated or conjectured in any book upon words or etymologies that has come to the notice of the writer. While the pronunciation c€st'-we is authorized by the Imperial and Encyclopstidic Dictionaries, learned lawyers everywhere say c Bt'-wI, a pronunciation which, it is probable, has always generally obtained. In Coke upon Littleton, the term is spelled cestyque use). The spellings of the plural of cestui que trust (the expression which, from the nature of the subject, is most common), collected on page 1057, are found in standard law works and in the opinions of t Jie courts, both English and American. The statement that cestuis receives the preference (the rest of the expression remaining unchanged) is based upon the writer's observations, and his examination of many text-books and reports. At the same time, it needs be said that the other forms, some more, others less, are in general use, even those in which the English word *' trust " is pluralized "trusteni" and "trustewis," and cestui is made cestuis. ' As,to what the earliest plural was teachers of Norman French are not in accord; one, a philologist, suggests that it was cesteanx; another, a lecturer in a law school, writes that the simple words received no plural endings. More certain information can be of little importance at this date: the coiu-ts and lawwriters will continue to "follow precedent," varying as that has been seen to be. A late authority (Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1888) makes cestui the objective case of the Norman French cist, cest, equivalent to the modern French ce. In modern French, also, as the lexicons show, ce means this, that; gm (subjective) and gwe (objective), the one which, and que, also, of whom; celui, he that, the one, that one: plural, ceux; celui qui, he who: plural ceux qui, c'est eux: cesteaux. Cestui que trust may be rendered, he for whom, or as to whom, there is a trust, or the trust is — exists, is created, is founded; cestui que use, he as to whom, or for whom, there is a use. or the use exists; cestui qui vie, he who lives, he as to whose life, or on whose life — an estate depends, or is to continue. CHIIESE, pages 177-78. tary Bayard and minister Chang Ten Hoon are those printed on page 178, excepting the words, at the close of the first Article, " and this prohibition shall extend to the return of Chinese laborers who are not now in the United States, whether holding return certificates under existing laws or not," and the sentence, at the close of the second Article, "And nouch Chinese laborer shall be permitted to enter the United States by land or sea without producing to the proper officer of the customs the return certificate herein required." These amendments were engrafted upon the proposed treaty by the Senate, May 7, 1888, the President having submitted the same for its advice and consent. They were designed to obviate difficulties presented by the decision in Yung Ah Lung's Case (124 U. S. 621, Feb. 13, 1888, ante, p. 179). The first amendment was intended to cancel " permits " granted to laborers not actually residing here March 12, 1888; the " extension " was viewed, by the Senate, as necessary to render the treaty completely effective, — it having been found impossible, in many cases, under the acts of 1882 and 1884 ante, p. 175), to disprove alleged "prior residence," identity, etc., when genuine certificates were presented by persons who claimed to be the original and rightful holders of them. But for the amendments the Chinese minister was prepared, it would seem, to exchange ratifications. As it was, on May 12th he wrote to Mr. Bayard that he did not disapprove of the changes proposed " as they did not alter the terms of the treaty." Without delay he also telegraphed the language of the amendments to China, whither an original draft of the treaty had been sent by mail. He was, moreover, of the opinion that about three months would elapse before the subject could be acted upon by the Grand Council of his government, and the result* be reported to him at Washington. He intended, meanwhile, to go to Peru on official business, and return in September, when the expected exchange of ratifications could take place. During the ensuing summer. Congress proceeded to embody in one comprehensive act legislation deemed necessary to give effect to the new treaty. The bill for this purpose, which became a law by the President's approval September 13th, 1S88, passed the Senate on August 8th, and the House on the 20th. The first of its fifteen sections recites " that from and after the date of the exchange of ratifications of the pending treaty,. signed the twelfth of March, A. D. 1888, it shall be unlawful for any Chinese person " to About September 1st it was * reported, by way of Loudon," that the treaty in its new shape had been rejected. The representative of China, at Washington, made no such report. On September 3d the subjoined "Exclusion Act" was presented, read, and passed in the House of Representatives, and by the Senate, four days later, unamended. A motion to reconsider the vote postponed' final action by the latter body some ten days; and on October 1st the President signed the bill,— the Chinese government, on September SOth, having declined to negotiate further upon the subject-m.atter. The act reads as follows: " Be it enactedetc., 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 may now or hereafter be, a resident within the United States, and who shall have departed, or shall depart, therefrom, and shall have not returned before the passage of this act, to return to, or remain in, the United States. \'* Sec. 2 -That no certificates of identity provided for in the fourth or fifth section of the act to which this is a supplement, shall hereafter be issued; and ' every certificate heretofore issued in pursuance thereof is hereby declared void and of no effect, and the Chinese laborer, claiming admission by virtue thereof, shall not be permitted to enter the United States. "Sec. 3. That all the duties prescribed, liabilities, penalties and forfeitures imposed, and the powers conferred by the second, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth, sections of the act to which this is a supplement are hereby extended and made applicable to the provisions of this act. " Sec. 4. That all such part or parts of the act to which this is a supplement as are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed." (See 35 St. L. 504.) An act approved October 19th appropriates fifty thousand dollars for carrying into effect the provisions of the Exclusion A6t. (j Sb St. L. ei5.)