Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 735 [24: 565, 573]; Vallee v. Dumergue, 4 Exch. 290, 303; Copin v. Adamson, L. R. 9 Exch. 345, 355, 356, and L. R. 1 Exch. Div. 17. in New England, or by mandamus to levy a tax to pay the judgment, pursuant to express statute, as in Missouri, have no bearing upon this case. Bloomfield v. Charter Oak Bank, 121 U. S. 121, 129 [30: 923, 927], and cases Judgment affirmed. LAU OW BEW, Appt., v. UNITED STATES. But such is not this case. Under a former statute of Missouri, any officer, holding an excited; State v. Rainey, 74 Mo. 229. ecution against a corporation which had been returned unsatisfied, might, without further action of the court, levy the same execution upon the property of stockholders within the State. Missouri Rev. Stat. 1855, chap. 34, §§ 13, 14. In that condition of the law, the judgment and execution bound only the property of stockholders on which it was levied within the State, and created no personal liability on their part which could be enforced [46] by suit in another State; and if the officer levied the execution on the property of any person not a stockholder, he was liable as a trespasser. The very object of the existing statute, as manifest on its face, and as declared by the Supreme Court of Missouri, was to change the law, so as to leave nothing to the discretion of the officer, and to require the judgment creditor to apply to the court for execution against any person whom he sought to charge as a stockholder, and to have all questions affecting his relations to the corpo ration and its creditors investigated and determined by the court before an execution should issue against him. Skrainka v. Allen, 76 Mo. 384, 391. And see Holyoke Bank v. Goodman Paper Mfg. Co. 9 Cush. 576, 583. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 47-64.) Judgment of Circuit Court of Appeals, when 1. 2. reviewable Chinese Restriction Act-construction of statutes-section six of Chinese Restriction Act-right of Chinese merchants by Treaty-Chinese merchants domiciled here may leave the country and re-enter it-certifi cate not required. The judgment or decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals in a case of habeas corpus is reviewable by this court upon certiorari when questions of gravity and importance are involved. Section 6 of the Chinese Restriction Act of May 6, 1882, as amended by the Act of July 5, 1884, prescribing the certificate to be produced by a Chinese person other than a laborer, as the only evidence permissible to establish his right of reentry into the United States, does not apply to Chinese merchants already domiciled in the United States who, having left the country for temporary purposes animo revertendi, seek to reenter it on their return to their business and their homes. such as will effectuate the legislative intention, NOTE.-As to when habeas corpus may issue, and when not; and from what courts, and by what judges; what may be inquired into by writ of, see note to United States v. Hamilton, 1: 490. In the case at bar, the defendant never resided in Missouri, and was not served with process within the State, either upon the original writ against the corporation, or upon the motion for execution against him. He denies that he was 3. Statutes should receive a sensible construction, a stockholder, and the question whether he was one was not tried or decided in the controversy between the plaintiff and the corporation, nor involved in the judgment recovered by one of those parties against the other. Under the statute of Missouri, and upon fundamental principles of jurisprudence, he is entitled to legal notice and trial of the issue whether he is a stockholder, before he can be charged with personal liability as such; and personal service of the notice within the jurisdiction of the court is essential to support an order or judgment ascertaining and establishing such liability, unless be bas voluntarily appeared, or otherwise waived his right to such service, which he has not done in this case. These views are maintained by a very recent decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri in Wilson v. St. Louis & 8. F. R. Co. (Mo.) 18 S. W. Rep. 286, as well as by the English cases [47] expounding the Stat. of 8 & 9 Vict. cl. 16, $36, which was the source of the provision of the existing statute of Missouri. Edwards v. Kilkenny & G. S. & W. R. Co. 1 C. B. N. S. 409, and 14 C. B. N. S. 526, and note, citing words of English statute; Ilfracombe R. Co. v. Devon & S. R. Co. L. R. 2 C. P. 15; Shrimpton v. Sidmouth R. Co. L. R. 3 C. P. 80; Skrainka v. Allen, 76 Mo. 384, 388, 389. See also Howell v. Manglesdorf, 33 Kan. 194. The cases in which judgments against a territorial and municipal corporation have been enforced against its inhabitants, either by direct levy of execution on their property, according to common law or ancient usage, as As to what questions may be considered on habeas corpus, see note to Ex parte Carll, 27: 288. As to construction of statute, according to purpose for which it was passed, see note to United States v. Saunders, 22: 736. As to provisos in statutes; construction and interpretation, see note to United States v. Dickson, 10: 689. That popular and received import of words furnishes rule of interpretation in laws as well as in public and social transactions; exceptions and qualifications: accustomed sense and usage, see note to Maillard v. Lawrence, 14: 925. As to construction of statutes; journals of the Legislature: views of individual members; motive of Legislature; fraud in passage, see note to Blake v. Nåtional City Bank, 23:119. As to when "may" means "must" or "shall;" when a power for public purposes is conferred, a duty arises to execute that power, see note to Minor v. Mechanics Bank of Alexandria, 7: 47. As to constitutionality of laws or of repeal or modification of statute, see note to Fletcher v. Peck, 3:162. As to retrospective statutes, when valid, see note to Otoe County v. Baldwin, 28: 331. As to effect of repeal of statute on pending action, see note to United States v. Tynen, 20: 153. As to repeal of statute by implication, see note to United States v. Henderson, 20: 235. [48] and if possible so as to avoid an unjust or an ab- 4. The words "who shall be about to come to the "5th. That said firm does a business annually of $100,000, and pays annually to the United States government large sums of money, amounting to many thousand of dollars, as duties upon imports. "6th. That on the 30th day of September, A. D. 1-90, the said passenger departed from this 5. 35 our Treaty with China, Chinese merchants country temporarily on a visit to his relatives domiciled in the United States have and are en- in China, with the intention of returning as titled to exercise the right of free egress and in gress and all other rights, privileges and immu-Soon as possible to this country, and returned nities enjoyed in this country by the citizens or to this country by the steamship Oceanic on the 11th day of August, A. D. 1891. subjects of the most favored nation. 6. Section 6 of the Chinese Restriction Act as amended, was not intended to prohibit Chinese Argued Jan. 14, 1892. Decided March 14, 1892. N WRIT of certiorari to the United States Circuit, to review a judgment of that Court, affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States, for the Northern District of California, in a case of habeas corpus, which determined that Lau Ow Bew, is a Chinese person forbidden by law to land within the United States or to remain there and ordered that he be transported to the port in China whence he came. Reversed, with directions to discharge the petitioner, etc. See same case below, 47 Fed. Rep. 578, 641. On application for certiorari, 141 U. S. 583 [35: 868]. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller: 44 7th. That at the time of his departure he procured satisfactory evidence of his status in [49] this country as a merchant, and on his return hereto he presented said proofs to the collector of the port of San Francisco, but said collector, while acknowledging the sufficiency of said proofs and admitting that the said passenger was a mercbant domiciled herein, refused to permit the said passenger to land on the sole lected to produce the certificate of the Chinese government mentioned in section 6 of the Chinese Restriction Act of May 6, 1882, as amended by the Act of July 5, 1884." The Circuit Court rendered judgment September 14, 1891, (47 Fed. Rep. 578,) which, the case having been carried by appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, was on the 7th day of October, 1891, affirmed. 47 Fed. Rep. 641. On November 16, 1891, this court upon the application of appellant, ordered that a writ of certiorari issue to the Circuit Court of Ap peals requiring it to certify the case up for review and determination, under section six of the Act to Establish Circuit Courts of Appeals, approved March 3, 1891. 26 Stat. at L. 826, 828. The fifth article of the Treaty concluded This is a writ of certiorari for the review of a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, in a case of habeas corpus, which determined that Lau Ow Bew, the appellant, is a Chinese person The United States of America and the forbidden by law to land within the United Emperor of China cordially recognize the inStates, and has no right to be or remain there-berent and inalienable right of man to change in, and ordered that he be deported out of the his home and allegiance, and also the mutual country, and transported to the port in China advantage of the free migration and emigration whence he came. of their citizens and subjects, respectively, from the one country to the other, for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents." Article VI. of that Treaty is as follows: The proceedings in the Circuit Court are set out in the application for the certiorari, as reported in 141 U. S. 583 [35: 868]. The case was heard and determined in that court upon an agreed statement of facts as follows: "It is hereby stipulated and agreed that the following are the facts herein: "1st. That the said Lau Ow Bew is now on board the SS. Oceanic, which arrived in the port of San Francisco, State of California, on the 11th day of August, A. D. 1891, from Hong Kong, and is detained and confined thereon by Captain Smith, the master thereof. "2d. That the said passenger is now and for seventeen years last past has been a resident of the United States and domiciled therein. "3d. That during all of said time the said passenger has been engaged in the wholesale and importing mercantile business in the city of Portland, State of Oregon, under the firm name and style of Hop Chong & Co. "4th. That said firm is worth $40,000, and said passenger has a one fourth interest therein, in additition to other properties. Citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, or exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may be there enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. And reciprocally, Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States, shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and exemptions in respect to travel or residence, as [50] may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. But nothing herein contained shall be held to confer natu ralization upon citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States." A supplementary Treaty was concluded November 17, 1850, (22 Stat. at L. 826,) which recites, among other things, in its preamble that, "whereas the government of the United States, because of the constantly increasing immigration of Chinese laborers to the terri tory of the United States, and the embarrass-in] by this Act [mentioned] to come within the ments consequent upon such immigration, now desires to negotiate a modification of the existing treaties which shall not be in direct contravention of their spirit;" and articles I. and II. of which are as follows: "Whenever in the opinion of the government of the United States, the coming of Chi nese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect the interests of that country, or to endanger the good order of the said country or of any locality within the territory thereof, the government of China agrees that the government of the United States may regulate, limit, or suspend such coming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation or suspension shall be reasonable and shall apply only to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes not being included in the limitations. Legislation taken in regard to Chinese laborers will be of such a character only as is necessary to enforce the regulation, limitation, or suspension of immigration, and immigrants shall not be subject to personal maltreatment or abuse. "Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers, students, mer chants or from curiosity, together with their body and household servants, and Chinese la borers who are now in the United States shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation." The sixth section of the Act of May 6, 1882, entitled "An Act to Execute certain Treaty [51] Stipulations Relating to Chinese,” (22 Stat. at L. 58,) as amended by the Act of July 5, 1884, (23 Stat. at L. 115,) the matter asserted in amendment being italicized, and the matter stricken out being in brackets, reads as follows: "SEC. 6. That in order to the faithful execution of [articles one and two of the Treaty in] the provisions of this Act [before mentioned,] every Chinese person, other than a laborer, who may be entitled by said Treaty [and] or this Act to come within the United States, and who shall be about to come to the United States shall obtain the permission of and be identified as so entitled by the Chinese government, or of such other foreign government of which at the time such Chinese person shall be a subject, in each case [such identity] to be evidenced by a certificate issued [under the au thority of said] by such government, which certificate shall be in the English language [or (if not in the English language) accompanied by a translation into English, stating such right to come and shall show such permission, with the name of the permitted person in his or her proper signature, and which certificate shall state the individual, family, and tribal name in full, title or official rank, if any, the age, height, and all physical peculiarities, former and present occupation or profession. when and where and how long pursued, and place of residence [in China] of the person to whom the certificate is issued, and that such person is entitled [conformably to the Treaty United States. If the person so applying for a certificate shall be a merchant, said certificate shall, in addition to 'above requirements, state the nature, character and estimated value of the business carried on by him prior to and at the time of his application as aforesaid: Provided, That nothing in this Act nor in said Treaty shal be construed as embracing within the meaning of the word 'merchant' hucksters, peddlers, or those engaged in taking, drying, or otherwise preserving shell or other fish for home consumption or exportation. If the certificate be sought for the purpose of travel for curiosity it shall also state whether the applicant intends to pass through or travel within the United States, together with his financial standing in the country [52] from which such certificate is desired. The cer tificate provided for in this Act, and the identity of the person named therein shall, before such person goes on board 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 representatire of the United States at the port or place from which the person named in the certificate is about to depart; and such diplomatic representative or consular representative whose indorsement is so required is hereby empowered, and it shall be his duty, before indorsing such certificate as aforesaid, to examine into the truth of the statements set forth in said certifi cate, and if he shall find upon examination that said or any of the statements therein_contained are untrue it shall be his duty to refuse to indorse the same. Such certificate vised as aforesaid shall be prima facie evidence of the fact set forth therein, and shall be produced to the collector of customs [or his deputy] of the port in the district in the United States at which the person named therein shall arrive, and af· terward produced to the proper authorities of the United States whenever lawfully demanded, and shall be the sole evidence permissible on the part of the person so producing the same to establish a right of entry into the United States; but said certificate may be controverted and the facts therein stated disproved by the United States authorities. On the third of July, 1890, the Treasury Department issued certain instructions regarding the re-entry into the United States of Chinese persons after a visit to China, one of which is as follows: "Chinamen who are not laborers, and who may have heretofore resided in the United States, are not prevented by existing law or Treaty from returning to the United States after visiting China or elsewhere. No certificates or other papers, however, are issued by the department, or by any of its subordinate officers, to show that they are entitled to land in the United States, but it is suggested that such persons should, before leaving the United States, [53] provide themselves with such proofs of identity as may be deemed proper, showing that they have been residents of the United States, and that they are not laborers, so that they can present the same to and be identified by, the collector of customs at the port where they may return." Syn. Treas. Dec. 1890, 253, 254. Messrs. J. Hubley Ashton and Thomas D. Riordan, for appellant: It is an historical, and an adjudicated fact, that this legislation, framed in supposed con formity with the provisions of the Treaty of 1880, was aimed against the immigration of Chinese laborers-not the coming of others to the United States. Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U. S. 545 (28: 773), Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 597 (32: 1072); Re Low Yam Chow, 13 Fed. Rep. 608. Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 268 (23: 547). Mr. A. X. Parker, Asst. Atty-Gen., for appellee. Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court: Before proceeding to dispose of this case upon the merits the question of jurisdiction, although not argued by counsel, must receive attention. The Act of Congress of March 3, 1891, esAll general terms in statutes are to be lim-tablishing circuit courts of appeals and definited to those persons and objects to which the ing and regulating the jurisdiction of the Legislature intended to apply them, and are to courts of the United States, (26 Stat. at L. be so construed, if possible, as to avoid an un-826,) was passed to facilitate the prompt dis just or an absurd conclusion. position of cases in this court and to relieve it United States v. Palmer, 16 U. S. 3 Wheat. 631 (4:477;) United States v. Kirby, 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 482 (19: 278); Smythe v. Fiske, 90 U. S. 23 Wall. 380 (23: 49); Re Low Yam Chow, 13 Fed. Rep 610; Brewer v Blougher, 39 U. S. 14 Pet. 196 (10: 416); United States v. Free-writ of error, or otherwise, from the existing [56] man, 44 U. S. 3 How. 565 (11:728): Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 268 (23: 547). By the general international law foreigners who have become domiciled in a country other than their own, have certain rights and duties which place them to some extent upon the same footing as the citizens of that coun- | try. Vattel, Bk. 1, chap. XIX., § 213; 1 Phil. Int. Law, chap. XVIII.; 2 Whart. Int. Law Dig. § 198, p. 286; Murray v. The Charming Betsey, 6 U. S. 2 Cranch, 120 (2:226). The rule is, that the court should discard any construction of such an enactment which would lead to absurd consequences. Oates v. First Nat. Bank of Montgomery, 100 U. S. 244 (25: 582); United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 486 (19: 280); Carlisle v. United States, 83 U. S. 16 Wall. 153 (21:429); Re Leong Yick Dew, 2 West. Coast Rep. 83. The court will construe the 6th section of the Act of 1884 so as to be in harmony with our treaties with China, and the established princiciples of international law. Murray v The Charming Betsey, 6 U. S. 2 Cranch, 118 (2: 226). The principle was recognized as one of paramount force, in the construction of municipal legislation, by all the judges of England, in the great case of Reg. v. Keyn, L. R. 2 Exch. Div. 63. It was applied by Lord Stowell in the celebrated case of Le Louis (5 Dod. Adm. 239), by Dr. Lushington in The Annapolis (Lush. Adm. 295), and Vice Chancellor Wood, and the Lords Justices, on appeal, in the case of Cope v. Doherty (1 Kay & J. 367, 2 De G. & J. 614. Every sovereign who has given an asylum to foreigners, considers himself no less of fended by an injury done to the latter, than he would be by an act of violence committed on his own subjects. Vattel, Bk. 11, chap. VIII., § 104; Re Ah Ping, 11 Sawy. 20. It is impossible for these resident merchants, every time they go abroad, to procure these foreign certificates, and to require them to produce them, as the only evidence of their right to re enter the country, would be in effect absolutely and unconditionally to exclude them. circuit courts shall be had only in the Supreme By section 14, section 691 of the Revised Under section 5, appeals or writs of error [1] In any case in which the jurisdiction of By section 6, the circuit courts of appeals The words "unless otherwise provided by law" were manifestly inserted out of abundant caution, in order that any qualification of the jurisdiction by contemporaneous or subsequent acts should not be construed as taking it away except when expressly so provided. Implied repeals were intended to be thereby guarded against. To hold that the words referred to piior laws would defeat the purpose of the Act and be inconsistent with its context and its repealing clause. The section then provides that "the judgments or decrees of the circuit courts of appeals shall be final in all cases in which the jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the opposite parties to the suit or controversy, being aliens and citizens of the United States or citizens of different states; also in all cases arising under the patent laws, under the revenue laws, and under the criminal laws and in admiralty cases, excepting that in every such subject within its appellate jurisdiction the Circuit Court of Appeals at any time may certify to the Supreme Court of the United States any questions or propositions of law concerning which it desires the instruction of that court for its proper decision. And thereupon the Supreme Court may either give its instructions on the questions and propositions certified to it, which shall be binding upon the circuit courts of appeals in such case, or it may require that the whole record and cause may be sent up to it for its consideration, and thereupon shall decide the whole matter in controversy in the same manner as if it had been brought there for review by writ of error or appeal. And excepting also that in any such case as is herein before made final in the Circuit Court of Appeals it shall be competent for the Supreme Court to require, by certiorari or otherwise, any such case to be certified" for its determination as if brought up by appeal or writ of error. "In all cases not herein before, in this section, made final there shall be of right an appeal or writ of error or review of the case by the Supreme Court of the United States where the matter in controversy shall exceed one thousand dollars besides costs." By this section judgments or decrees in the enumerated classes of cases are made final in terms by way of the exclusion of any review by writ of error or appeal, while as to cases not expressly made final by the section, appeal or wri of error may be had of right, where the money value of the matter in controversy exceeds one thousand dollars besides costs. to this court any questions or propositions of We are brought, therefore, to the considera- Does the section apply to Chinese merchants, already domiciled in the United States, who, having left the country for temporary purposes, animo revertendi, seek to re-enter it on their return to their business and their homes? States, 143 U. S. 457 [36: 226]; Henderson Nothing is better settled than that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as The case before us is one of habeas corpus. will effectuate the legislative intention, and, if [58] The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was not possible, so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd in issue, nor was the construction or applica-conclusion. Church of Holy Trinity v. United tion of the Constitution of the United States involved, nor the constitutionality of any law of the United States, or the validity or construction of any Treaty made under its authority, drawn in question. It did not fall within either of the classes of cases which may be In the case of Re Low Yam Chow, 13 Fed. brought directly to this court under the Act, Rep. 605, it was held by the Circuit Court for and was, therefore, properly carried to the the District of California, September 5, 1882, Circuit Court of Appeals. And as a case of that Chinese merchants who resided, at the habeas corpus is not one in which the matter time of the passage of the Act of Congress of in controversy involves a money value, no May 6, 1882, in other countries than China, on appeal lies from that court under section six. arriving in a port of the United States, were Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487 [29: 458]. But not required by that Act to produce certificates as the decree is "made final" by the effect of of the Chinese government establishing their the section in giving the circuit courts of ap-character as merchants, as a condition of their peals jurisdiction over that class of cases, we being allowed to land, but that their character are of opinion that it is reviewable upon cer- as such merchants could be established by parol tiorari, and that this writ was providently evidence. And Mr. Justice Field, delivering the opinion of the court, referring to the sixth In every case within its appellate jurisdic-section of the Act, said: "The certificate tion, the Circuit Court of Appeals may certify mentioned in this section is evidently designed issued. |