*552

construction is wholly inadmissible; for, apart from a violation of the treaty of 1880, which is involved in such a construction, it is inconceivable that congress would have announced its purpose not to include in the suspension for 10 years Chinese laborers who might come into the United States within 90 days immediately after the passage of the act of 1882, and, in the same act, have prohibited their entering this country unless they should produce a certificate which could have been furnished only to those who were here at the passage of that act, and left after it took effect.

But all basis for such a construction is removed by the amendment made in the third section by the act of 1884. The above clause as amended reads thus: "That the two foregoing sections shall not apply to Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth day of November, eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days after the passage of the act to which this act is amendatory, nor shall said sections apply to Chinese laborers who shall produce to such master, etc., the evidence hereinafter in this act required, * * *" etc. The striking out of the word "and," in the third section of the original act, and inserting the words "nor shall said sections apply to Chinese laborers," are very significant. As amended, the third section wholly precludes the idea that the right to return to this country of those who were here at the date of the treaty, but were absent when congress legislated upon the subject of Chinese immigration, was to be incumbered with the condition, impossible to be performed, of producing a collector's certificate; for that section, as it stands, declares, without qualification, that the first and second sections shall not apply to those who were here at the date of the treaty. * If a Chinese laborer who was here at the date of the treaty, and also when the act of 1882 on conviction thereof, be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.

Sec. 12. That no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land without producing to the proper officer of customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons seeking to land from a vessel, and any Chinese person found unlawfully within the United States shall be caused to be removed therefrom to the country from whence he came, [by direction of the president of the United States,] and at the cost of the United States, after being brought before some justice, judge, or commissioner of a court of the United States, and found to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States; and in all such cases, the person who brought or aided in bringing such person to the United States shall be liable to the government of the United States for all necessary expenses incurred in such investigation and removal; and all peace officers of the sev eral states and territories of the United States are hereby invested with the same authority as a marshal or United States marshal in reference to carrying out the provisions of this act, or of the act of which this is amendatory, as a marshal or deputy marshal of the United States, and shall be entitled to like compensation, to be audited and paid by the same officers. And the United States shall pay all costs and charges for the maintenance and return of any Chinese person having the certificate prescribed by law as entitling such Chinese person to come into the United States, who may not have been permitted to land from any vessel by reason of any of the provisions of this act. Sec. 13. That this act shall not apply to diplomatic and other officers of the Chinese, or other governments, traveling upon the business of that government, whose credentials shall be taken as equivalent to the certificate in this act mentioned, and shall exempt them and their body and household servants from the provisions of this act as to other Chinese persons.

Sec. 14. That hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.

Sec. 15. That the provisions of this act shall apply to all subjects of China and Chinese, whether subjects of China or any other foreign power, and the words "Chinese laborers," wherever used in this act, shall be construed to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.

Sec. 16. That any violation of any of the provisions of this act, or of the act of which this is amendatory, the punishment of which is not otherwise herein provided for, shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment.

Sec. 17. That nothing contained in this act shall be construed to affect any prosecution or other proceeding, criminal or civil, begun under the act of which this is amendatory; but such prosecution or other proceeding, criminal or civil, shall proceed as if this act had not been passed.

was passed, uesired again to leave the country, his right to return was made to depend upon his producing the certificate required by that act. And this was true, also, of a Chinese laborer, not here at the date of the treaty, who, having come within 90 days next after the original act was passed, desired to depart from the United States and return at some subsequent period.

Coming to the fourth section of the act, we find evidence of the most cogent nature of the intention of congress not to disregard that treaty. As it stood in the act of 1882, it was in these words: "That for the purpose of properly dentifying Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth Jay of November, eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into he same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and in order to furnish them with the proper evidence of their right to go from and come to the United States of their free will and accord, as provided by the treaty between the United States and China, dated November seventeenth, eighteen hundred and eighty, the collector of customs of the district from which any such Chinese laborer shall depart from the United States shall, in person or by deputy, go on board each vessel having on board any such Chinese laborer, and cleared, or about to sail, from his district for a foreign port, and on surl, vessel make a list of all such Chinese laborers, which shall be entered in 1egistry books to be kept for that purpose, in which shall be stated the name, age, occupation, last place of residence, physical marks or peculiarities, and all facts necessary for the identification of each of such Chinese laborers, which books shall be safely kept in the custom-house; and every such Chinese laborer so departing from the United States shall be entitled to, and shall receive free of any charge or cost, upon application therefor, from the collector or his deputy, at the time such list is taken, a certificate signed by the collector or his deputy, and attested by his seal of office, in such form as the secretary of the treasury shall prescribe, which certificate shall contain a statement of the name, age,*occupation, last place of residence, * personal description, and facts of identification of the Chinese laborer to whom the certificate is issued, corresponding with the said list and registry in all particulars. In case any Chinese laborer, after having received such certificate, shall leave such vessel before her departure, he shall deliver his certificate to the master of the vessel, and if such Chinese laborer shall fail to return to such vessel before her departure from port, the certificate shall be delivered by the master to the collector of customs for cancellation. The certificate herein provided for shall entitle the Chinese laborer to whom the same is issued to return to and re-enter the United States upon producing and delivering the same to the collector of customs of the district at which such Chinese laborer shall seek to re-enter; and upon delivery of such certificate by such Chinese laborer to the collector of customs at the time of re-entry in the United States, said collector shall cause the same to be filed in the custom-house and duly canceled."

This section was amended by the act of 1884 so as to require that the list made by the collector or his deputy, and entered in the registry books kept for that purpose, as well as the certificate issued by the collector to any Chinese laborer about to depart by vessel, should show-what the original act did not require—his individual, family, and tribal name in full, and when and where his occupation was followed. It was further amended so as to provide, in terms, that the certificate furnished to such laborer by the collector "shall be the only evidence permissible to establish his right of reentry." In that section, as in the third, a certain class of Chinese laborers is described as those who were here on the seventeenth of November, 1880. Why was that date fixed, unless for the purpose of giving effect to the article of the treaty, which secured to Chinese laborers, who were in this country on that particular day, the same freedom, in respect of travel and intercourse, that was accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation.?

554

Congress certainly did not overlook, much less intend to ignore, the stipulations of the treaty, or question their scope or effect; for the fourth section, referring to Chinese laborers who were here on the seventeenth day of November, 1880, expressly recognizes the fact that the treaty of that date gave thein "the right to go from and come to the United States."

Now, the argument in behalf of the government is that, since congress made provision for certificates to be furnished to those who were entitled to demand them, it did not intend to recognize the right to return of any Chinese laborer who, being in the United States at the date of the treaty, was not here when the act of 1882 was passed. Assuming, always, that there was a purpose, in good faith, to abide by the stipulations of the treaty, this argument necessarily implies that, in the judgment of congress, the treaty did not secure to any Chinese laborer the right of going and coming of his own free will, except to those in this country at the date of the treaty, who renained here continuously until the original act was passed, or who had returned by the latter date; in other words, that a Chinese laborer who was here on the seventeenth of November, 1880, lost the right to return, so far as that right was secured by treaty, if he left at any time-no matter for what purpose or for how brief a period—prior to, and had not returned before, the passage of the act of 1882.

But the treaty is not subject to any such interpretation. To give it that interpretation would be, in effect, to interpolate in its second article, after the words "Chinese laborers who are now in the United States," the words "and who shall continue to reside therein." The plaintiff in error left this country after the ratification of the treaty, having the right, secured by its articles, to return, of his own free will, without being subjected to burdens or regulations that materially interfere with its enjoyment. The legislative enactments in question should receive such a construction, if possible, as will save that right, while giving full effect to the intention of congress. That result can be attained consistently with recognized rules of interpretation. Lex non intendit aliquid impossibile is a familiar maxim of the law. The supposition should not be indulged that congress, while professing to faithfully execute treaty stipulations, and recognizing the fact that they secured to a certain class the "right to go from and come to the United States," intended to make its protection depend upon the performance of conditions which it was physically impossible to perform. "Besides," said this court in U. S. v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 486, "general terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter." See, also, Carlisle v. U. S. 16 Wall. 153. So, in Perry v. Skinner, 2 Mees. & W. 471, it was said: "The rule by which we are to be guided is to look at the precise words, and to construe them in their ordinary sense, unless it would lead to absurdity or manifest injustice; and if it should, so to vary them as to avoid that which certainly could not have been the intention of the legislature. We must put a reasonable construction upon their words.” Lake Shore Ry. Co. v. Roach, 80 N. Y. 339; Com. v. Kimball, 24 Pick. 370; Campbell's Case, 2 Bland, 209; Sedg. St. & Const. Law, 191. What injustice could be more marked than, by legislative enactment, to recognize the existence of a right by treaty to come within the limits of the United States, and, at the same time, to prescribe, as the only evidence permissible to establish it, the possession of a collector's certificate that could not possibly have been obtained by the person to whom the right belongs? Or, to prevent the re-entry of a person into the United States upon the ground that he did not, upon his arrival from a foreign port, produce a certain certificate, under the hand and seal of a collector, and upon forms prescribed by the secretary of the treasury, which neither

that nor any other officer was authorized or permitted to give prior to the departure of such person from this country? Or what incongruity is more evident than to impose upon a collector the duty of going on board of a vessel about to sail from his district for a foreign port, and making and recording a list of its passengers of a particular race, showing their individual,, family, and tribal names in full, their age, occupation, last place of residence, physical marks and peculiarities, when such vessel had sailed long before the law passed which imposed that duty on the collector? These questions suggest the consequences that must result if it is held that congress intended to abrogate the treaty with China, by imposing conditions upon the enjoyment of rights secured by it which are impossible of performance.

But there is another view which tends to show the unsoundness of the construction upon which the government insists. It is this: If Chinese laborers who were here at the date of the treaty, or who came within 90 days next after the passage of the act of 1882, being out of the country when the act of 1884 was passed, can re-enter only upon producing the certificate required by the latter act, then congress must have intended to exclude even those who were in this country at the time the act of 1882 was passed, and who, upon going away, received the certificate mentioned in it; for the certificate prescribed by the act of 1882 is not the certificate prescribed by that of 1884; they differ in several particulars; and yet, if the act of 1884 is to be taken literally, all Chinese laborers are excluded who do not produce the very certificate mentioned in it. The original act expressly provides that the certificate prescribed therein "shall entitle the Chinese laborer to whom the same is issued to return to and re-enter the United States, upon producing and delivering the same" to the collector of the district at which he seeks to re-enter. Congress did not intend, by indirection, to withdraw from those who received and relied upon the certificate mentioned in that act the privilege of returning, simply because they did not (and could not) produce the certificate required by the amendatory act, passed during their rightful absence. Those who left the country with certificates under the original act were entitled to return upon the production of those certificates. If, then, the act of 1884 did not defeat the rights given by that of 1882, it follows that there are Chinese laborers who, having been in the United States prior to July 5, 1884, may re-enter without producing the certificate required by the act of the latter date; and so the argument that congress intended to exclude from the country Chinese laborers of every class who did not produce the certificate: prescribed by the act of 1884, fails in respects essential to sustain the judg ment below. A construction of the original and amendatory acts which saves. the rights of the plaintiff in error rests upon precisely the same grounds as does a construction of the amendatory act which saves the rights of those obtaining certificates under the original act, who did not seek to re-enter the country until after the act of 1884 was passed.

There are other sections of the act of congress upon which, it was suggested in argument, the judgment below could be sustained. Some stress is laid upon the fifth section, which provides that "any Chinese laborer mentioned in section four of this act, being in the United States and desiring to depart from the United States by land, shall have the right to demand and receive, free of charge or cost, a certificate of identification similar to that provided for in section four of this act to be issued to such Chinese laborers as may desire to leave the United States by water; and it is hereby made the duty of the collector of customs of the district next adjoining the foreign country to which said Chinese laborer desires to go, to issue such certificate, free of charge or cost, upon application by such Chinese laborer, and to enter the same upon registry books to be kept by him for the purpose, as provided for in section four of this act." The argument, based upon this section, is that the phrase "being in the United States" indicates a purpose to exclude

*558

པ་ཝཱ་

all Chinese laborers not in the United States at the date of the original act In our judgment, that phrase throws light upon the true meaning of the fourth section, in this: that, as the fifth section prescribe a certificate for those "being in the United States" who desired to depart by land, so the fourth section prescribed a certificate for those being in the United States who desired to depart by water. In each case the provision is for those who are rightfully here, and therefore have an opportunity to demand and receive the required certificate, and not for those who are protected by the treaty, but who, being absent from the country, when the law was enacted making provision for a collector's certificate, could not demand and receive it. Neither section purports to defeat previously-existing rights by imposing conditions upon their enjoyment which cannot be satisfied.

It is also said, in support of the judgment, that the sixth section is significant, in that it prescribes the mode for the coming to this country of Chinese persons, "other than a laborer who may be entitled by said treaty and this act to come within the United States," but fails to provide the means for the return and identification of Chinese laborers who were entitled by the treaty to return, but who were out of the country when the act of congress was passed. But this argument, like the one just alluded to, only proves that congress, while making provision for the coming of persons who were entitled to come, other than laborers, omitted to make special provision in reference to the latter, and, consequently, left them to stand upon their rights as secured by the treaty, and, if their right to enter the United States was questioned, to prove in some way, consistent with the general principles of law, that they belonged to the class entitled to go and come. Some reliance was also placed upon the implication arising from that clause of the twelfth section which declares that "no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land, without producing to the proper officer of customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons seeking to land from a vessel." We do not perceive that any argument based upon these words meets the view that the act of congress, in respect of Chinese laborers entitled to gc and come, is inapplicable to those who were here at the date of the treaty, but, by reason of absence when the act of congress took effect, could not obtain the required certificate. If, however, the twelfth section should be held to forbid the entrance of Chinese persons of every class into this country, by land, except upon the certificate required by the fourth section, it would not follow that a Chinese laborer entitled by the treaty to go and come at pleasure, and who was out of the country when the act of congress was passed, could not re-enter by vessel, upon satisfactory evidence of his being here at the date of the treaty.

The entire argument in support of the jugdment below proceeds upon the erroneous assumption that congress intended to exclude all Chinese laborers of every class who were not in the United States at the time of the passage of the act of 1882, including those who, like the plaintiff in error, were here when the last treaty was concluded, but were absent at the date of the passage of that act. We have stated the main reasons which, in our opinion, forbid that interpretation of the act of congress. To these may be added the further one, that the courts uniformly refuse to give to statutes a retrospective operation, whereby rights previously vested are injuriously affected, unless compelled to do so by language so clear and positive as to leave no room to doubt that such was the intention of the legislature. In U. S. v. Heth, 3 Cranch, 413, this court said that "words in a statute ought not to have a retrospective operation unless they are so clear, strong, and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or unless the intention of the legislature cannot be otherwise satisfied;" and such is the settled doctrine of this court. Murray v. Gibson, 15 How. 423; McEwen v. Den, 24 How. 244; Har"ey v. Tyler, 2 Wall. 347; Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 599; Twenty per cent