A Chinese Merchant Lost His Store. The Judge Said He Still Had Rights.

THIS DEPORTATION LAW. Chin Chew Coy Property Rights Before Act Was Passed.

The recent decision of Judge Hanford in reference to Chin Chew Coy does not vary the deportation law as it has heretofore been understood. Coy had been a merchant, and through the effects of the hard times became a laborer, although he still retained an interest in a store in Portland. He was arrested on a charge of being unlawfully in the country. Judge Hanford released him, because, although he was a merchant no longer, the treaty preserved his rights.

Judge Hanford said in regard to the effect and scope of the decision:

'It will work no wholesale change in conditions. A few cases may arise in the future where merchants may become laborers and this decision will cover such cases. According to my idea you cannot send a man out of the country under the circumstances in this case without violating the treaty between the United States and China. One reason for my decision in this case was that Coy held an interest in a store in Portland and it would deprive him of his property rights to send him out of the country and that, too, would be in violation of the treaty. Under the terms of the Geary Act a Chinese cannot be a merchant unless he follows that occupation alone, but at the time the Geary Act was in effect he was a merchant and subsequently he became a cook. My decision was that under article 4 of the treaty Coy was entitled to be protected in all the rights he had formerly acquired and that therefore he was entitled to a legal residence in the country.'

Collector Saunders anticipates no radical change in the enforcement of the Chinese exclusion law by reason of Judge Hanford's decision denying the deportation of a Chinese who was formerly a merchant but since has become a laborer. He said:

'Chew Coy was formerly a merchant in Portland and on account of failure in business was compelled to resort to manual labor to gain a livelihood. Judge Hanford's decision was eminently correct, I believe. It cannot affect the enforcement of the present law. The present rule requiring two reputable white witnesses to vouch for the fact that a Chinese, who desires to leave the country, is a bona fide merchant and had been such for more than one year last is still in force. Unless they can produce such proof no Chinese merchants are admitted in the district from foreign territory. The only inconvenience it involves is to the Chinese themselves, who have failed as merchants and are reduced to laborers. They must always stand ready to prove their former occupation to avoid deportation.'

Chinese Inspector Frank P. Schuyler entertains the same opinion regarding the probable effect of Judge Hanford's decision in the Chin Coy case as Collector Saunders. Mr. Schuyler says:

'I believe the worst feature of the new treaty is that it will make it hard to distinguish teachers, tourists, merchants or travelers for curiosity or pleasure from laborers. Take for instance a case where a firm is composed of twenty-five members, as is often the case with these firms, and business becomes dull, and they are compelled to seek manual labor and are found so doing, they will be subjected to the same process as in the case of Chin Coy. Had it not been for this new treaty, Judge Hanford would probably have been unable to decide the case as he did, as there was no provision in the then existing law.'