1903, Feb. 2, 32 Stat. 793, c. 351.. 1903, March 2, 32 Stat. 943, c. 976; see Safety Appliance Act. 1906, May 8, 34 Stat. 182, ...205, 206 40 c. 2348. 1906, June 11, 34 Stat. 232, c. 3073.. 1906, June 16, 34 Stat. 267, c. 3335.. .584, 586, 587 1906, June 28, 34 Stat. 539, c. 3572.. .433 et seq. 1906, June 29, 34 Stat. 584, c. 3591..58, 89, 92, 94, 95, 194, 322, 326, 378 1906, June 30, 34 Stat. 768, c. 3915 (Food & Drugs Act). 1907, March 2, 34 Stat. 1230, c. 2536.. .270 et seq. Constitution. 596 Amendt. VII. .216 et seq., 226, 242, 263, 431, 487, 496 Amendt. XIV..80, 310, 427, 429, 431, 442, 446, 1909, March 4, 35 Stat. 1145; Revised Statutes. see Penal Code. 1910, April 5, 36 Stat. 291, c. 143; see Employers' § 575. 611 Liability Act. § 578. 610 1910, April 14, 36 Stat. 298, c. 160; see Safety Appliance § 638. .610, 611 Act. $708. 139 $720. $731. 446 77 (B.) STATUTES OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES. 1884, Mansfield's Dig., Florida. §§ 6490-6548, c. 155 Minnesota. Const., jury provisions. 216 Missouri. 100 et seq. Gen. Stat., § 2765..621, 623 2 Jones & Add. Stat. New York. ...559, 560 Ohio. Constitution, Referendum 1912.. 1915, Act No. 10. .80 et seq. Massachusetts. Rev. Laws, § 91, c. 173.. 260 Michigan. Pub. Acts 1913, No. 301 May, 1915... Oklahoma. Oregon. 341 et seq. Amendment, Sept. 3, Redistricting Act passed Const., 28, Schedule.. 585 3 Lord's Ore. Laws, Tit. XLIII, ch. 6... .... 442 566 566 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1915. CHIN FONG v. BACKUS, COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION FOR THE PORT OF SAN FRAN CISCO. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 664. Argued April 5, 6, 1916.-Decided April 17, 1916. Where the right of a person of Chinese descent to enter this country depends, as in this case, upon the statutes regulating Chinese immigration and not upon the construction of provisions of treaties relating thereto, a direct appeal will not lie to this court under § 238, Jud. Code, from a judgment dismissing a petition for habeas corpus of a Chinese person detained for deportation. The status of a Chinese merchant, as defined by the treaty with China of 1880, is that acquired in China and not in this country. THE facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this court of appeals from the District Court under § 238, Judicial Code, are stated in the opinion. Mr. Jackson H. Ralston, with whom Mr. William E. Richardson was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Assistant Attorney General William Wallace, Jr., for the appellee. (1) MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA delivered the opinion of the court. Appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for habeas corpus and remanding petitioner to the custody of the Commissioner of Immigration for the Port of San Francisco, in whose custody he was, pending petitioner's deportation. A summary of the petition made by the District Court is as follows: "Petitioner Chin Fong, who had been a resident of the United States for a number of years, departed for China in November, 1912; that before he left he applied for a pre-investigation as to his status as a merchant, and a certificate was denied him on the ground that his original entry into this country was surreptitious. Notwithstanding this denial the petitioner left the country, and is now endeavoring to re-enter as a returning Chinese merchant; that he presents the affidavits of a member of the New York firm to which he claims to belong and of two reputable Americans supporting his claim; that notwithstanding these facts he has been denied admission and ordered deported on the same ground that his pre-investigation certificate was denied, that is to say, because his original entry was surreptitious; that in so deciding the immigration department has exceeded its authority, as that question can only be determined under the Exclusion laws by a Justice, Judge or Commissioner." A demurrer was interposed to the petition which was sustained, the court saying: "Had the petitioner been content to remain in this country he could have been deported only after a hearing before a Justice, Judge or Commissioner. But as he left the country voluntarily, and even after a pre-investigation certificate was denied him, the question of his right to re-entry lies peculiarly with the immigration department, and as they have found |