1. Aliens — Chinese—Certificate of Residence — Failure to Obtain — -Deportation- — Jurisdiction.

A United States commissioner has jurisdiction to hear and determine a charge against a Chinese person of being unlawfully within the country without a certificate of residence, though Act Cong. May 5, 1892, c. 60, § 6, 27 Stat. 25 [TJ. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1320J, providing for the issuance of such certificates, declares that one not obtaining a certificate within a specified time shall be adjudged unlawfully within the country, and shall be arrested and taken before a United States “judge,” etc.

[Ed. Notes. — Citizenship of the Chinese, see notes to Gee Fook Sing v. United States, 1 O. C. A. 212; Lee Sing Far v. United States, 35 O. C. A.

2. Same — Deportation Proceedings — Character.

A proceeding fpr the deportation of a Chinese laborer not having a certificate entitling him to residence required by Chinese Exclusion Act (Act Cong. May 5, 1892, c. 60, 27 Stat 25 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1319], as amended by Act Nov. 3, 1893, c. 14, 28 Stat. 7 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1322] and Act April 29, 1902, c. 641, 32 Stat. 176 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 295]), is not a criminal proceeding, and hence it is competent for the government to swear such Chinese person as a witness against himself.

3. Same — Statutes—Validity.

Chinese Exclusion Act, May 5, 3892, o. 60; 27 Stat. 25 [U. S. Comp. St. 1903, p. 1319J, in so far as it places the burden of proof of the right of a Chinese person without a certificate to remain in the United States on him, is valid.

4. Same — Nationality—Evidence.

In proceedings for the deportation of an alleged Chinese person, the fact that he was a native of China, coupled with his personal appearance-indicating by his dress, physiognomy and queue that he was a Chinaman, was sufficient to justify a' finding to that effect in the absence of evidence to the contrary.