Federal Commissioner Rules Against Double Jeopardy for Chinese Laborers
After Tacoma authorities discharged three Chinese men on grounds of legal entry, Seattle officials attempted to re-try the same individuals.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Jong Kee, Sut Mong and Ah Gen, three of the cargo of Chinese laborers captured near here about two weeks ago, were brought before United States Commissioner Emery yesterday to have a hearing on a charge of being unlawfully in the country, although they were discharged by Commissioner Clifford at Tacoma last week as having a right to remain. The government officials thought that there was good reason to believe that the heathens were not what they claimed to be and were confident that they would be ordered deported by Commissioner Emery if a rehearing could be had. The latter thought otherwise, however, and held that the government had chosen its jurisdiction and had no right to again put the prisoners in jeopardy for their alleged offense. The decision in full was as follows: 'These Chinamen have already been tried for being illegally in the country and been tried and discharged by United States Commissioner Clifford at Tacoma. Although the charge of being here in the country is held to be a quasi-criminal offense rather than a felony, I think the doctrine of res adjudicata applies. Under the law of congress relating to the Chinese, the commissioners are not given the power to enter final judgments as are the highest justices of the land, yet when a commissioner like Commissioner Clifford has held a formal trial and passed an order discharging a prisoner, I have no power to overrule him. The prisoners are discharged.'
“Although the charge of being here in the country is held to be a quasi-criminal offense rather than a felony, I think the doctrine of res adjudicata applies.”
This case highlights the arbitrary and dehumanizing legal environment created by the Chinese Exclusion Acts of the late 19th century. Even when individuals secured a legal victory, the government frequently sought out new jurisdictions or judges to harass and re-arrest them, a practice that mirrors ongoing systemic issues regarding how marginalized groups are treated by immigration enforcement.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.