Weedin

Appellant is of the Chinese race, was bom in China, was never in the United States, is *963 married, and, we shall assume, is the son of a Chinese merchant lawfully domiciled here. His contention is that, though he did not reach the port of Seattle where he sought admission until April 25, 1927, one day after he became 21 years of age, he was entitled to be admitted as the minor son of a resident merchant, because on March 30, 1927, he received from the American consul at Hong Kong a visa as such “minor son,” and thereupon boarded and was duly manifested as a passenger upon the first vessel thereafter sailing from Hong Kong to Seattle; the vessel being of American registry and sailing from Hong Kong on April 6th for a continuous voyage to Seattle. This view we are unable to accept. There is no express provision of either treaty or statute authorizing the entry of children of domiciled Chinese merchants, and such rights as are recognized rest upon judicial construction. For the reasons explained by Judge Deady in the Chung Toy Ho Case (C. C.) 42 F. 398 , 9 L. R. A. 204, and approved, by the Supreme Court in United States v. Mrs. Gue Lim et al., 176 U. S. 459 , 20 S. Ct. 415 , 44 L.…