wmcox v. FIVE HUNDRED ·roNs or 00AL. 49
This act may be enforced so as, for all practical purposes, to ex-
clude Chinese laborers from coming here and entering into competi-
tion with the labor of the inhabitants of the country, without spite-
fully straining it to cover a few doubtful or extreme cases, and thereby
eventually bringing it into deserved odium and disrepute. Nor should i
it be forgotten by those who favor the exclusion of Chinese laborers
from the country, and wish to see the experiment fairly tried, that the
act is unfavorably regarded by a large portion of the most intelligent i
and influential people of the country "as being the servile echo of the
elamors of the sand lot-as fraught with danger to our commercial re-
lations with China, as inconsistent with our national policy, as obstruct-
·ing the spread of Christianity, and as violative, not only of the treaty,
but of the inherent rights of man." Hossmm, D. J., In re Low Yam
Chow, 10 Pac. C. Law J. 140; [S. C. 13 FED. Bur. 616.]
My conclusion is that neither Moncan nor Ah Kee are unlawfully
in the country, within the perview of the act of May 6, 1882, because
(1) they are simply on board of a vessel "touching" at this port
while on a voyage to a foreign one; (2) they are here only as mem-
bers of the crew of a vessel arriving from a foreign port and taking
on cargo for another; and, further, that Moncan, having joined an if
American ship prior to the passage of the act, and remained on her
until his arrival here, is not thereby prohibited from residing in the
country. `
The prisoners are discharged from the arrest, and the marshal is
directed to return them to the vessel from which they were taken, ¤
— Wmcox v. Fivm HUNDRED Tous or Com.
(Oérauit Uourt, N. D. Illinois. November 26, 1880.) ·
1. Lnmiurmr-—Lm¤ Fon FBEIGHT—DELIVERY.
As a rule, where the cargo has been delivered to the conslgnee, the ship-owner
does not retain a lien thereon for his freight unless there is an understanding
between the parties, when the goods are delivered to the cons‘gnee, to that
V ‘ eiiect, or it is the usage of the port where the cargo is delivered that the lien
shall remain.
2. SAME—NEGIiIGENCE or CA1=·*rA1¤—W1Nrsnmo. `
The evidence in this case showing that the captain was not guilty of negli-
gence in not completing the voyage on account of rough weather, it was held
, that the district court erred in awarding damages on that account.
v.14,no.1—-4 _