This is an appeal from the judgment of the court below directing the deportation of the appellant to China, affirming a like order of the United States commissioner at Portland, Or., based upon a verified complaint of one of the government’s Chinese inspectors charging that the appellant was unlawfully within the United States and within the jurisdiction of the court below, in that he was a subject of the Emperor of China, and without the certificate of registration, or other document or lawful authority entitling him to be or remain within the United States, that he was a laborer, and *513 did not belong to any of the excepted classes of Chinese persons provided for by law. From the opinion of the court below found in the record it appears that seven other Chinese persons were proceeded against in like manner and at the same time, in respect to five of which the court, after reviewing the testimony given on behalf of the respective parties, reversed the action of the commissioner directing their deportation, and discharged them; but in respect to the present appellant and one Lee Jo Yen, the court affirmed the commissioner’s order of deportation, saying in the opinion:

The judgment of the court below that is appealed from is as follows:

The first assignment of error is to the effect that the court erred in affirming the decision of the commissioner “without finding the facts upon which said order could be based.” ■

The second assignment is to the effect that the court below erred “in not making and filing findings of fact and conclusions of Jaw, as without these there are no grounds for the order affirming the commissioner’s order of deportation.” It is sufficient to say in response to these assignments that the facts upon which the court below proceeded are sufficiently stated in the judgment.

The remaining assignments of error are based upon the evidence printed in the record, which, however, is not embodied in a bill of exceptions, or otherwise authenticated as having been used before the court below. Tt cannot therefore be considered here.

Motion to dismiss and to strike out denied, and the judgment affirmed.