Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington.

Look Wing, the father of the petitioner presented to the court below a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that in the month of August, 1892, in the city of Seattle, state of Washington, Can Pon was born of Chinese parents who then resided and were permanently domiciled in said city; that in the year 1899 he, with his parents, departed from the United States and went to the empire of China, where he remained until October, 1907; that he then returned to the United States and applied for admission at the port of Sumas, in the state of Washington; that upon his arrival he was placed in confinement by Harry Edsell, the Chinese inspector in charge at the port of Sumas, and was not permitted to communicate with his counsel or friends, but was subjected to a rigid and severe examination, at which no one but the inspector and his deputies was permitted to be present. The petition sets forth the proceedings taken with respect to the application of Can Pon for admission into the United States, the taking of testimony in relation thereto while he was detained at the port of Sumas, where it was impossible for him to see or hear any of the witnesses produced against him, the action of the inspector in charge in preventing him from procuring witnesses in his own behalf to prove his identity, denying him the right to return, and ordering his deportation to the empire of China, and the appeal of Can Pon to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The petition alleges that prior to taking said appeal neither the said Can Pon nor his counsel or friends were permitted in any way to examine or inspect the evidence produced on behalf of the government; that during the examination and investigation the inspector in charge obtained certain testimony exceptionally favorable to the said Can Pon, but neglected to submit the same to the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor on the appeal, and that said testimony was not before the Secretary when said appeal was decided, and was never presented to the Department of Commerce and Labor on the appeal; that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor affirmed the decision of the inspector, and ordered the deportation of Can Pon. The petition alleges that the inspector, in rendering his decision, and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, in affirming the same, acted arbitrarily, without any evidence to support their decision, and that by reason of prejudice and secret communications they grossly abused their discretion, and. that by said decisions Can Pod has been deprived of his rights and liberty as a citizen of the United States, and lias been ordered to he deported from his native land, without just cause or due process of law. The petition refers to rules 5, 6, 12, and 13 promulgated by the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor, under which the rights of Gan Pon were adjudicated, and alleges that those rules do not and cannot apply to a citizen of the United States; that they are arbitrary, inconsistent, and void under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in that they deprive a citizen of the United States of his rights, liberty, and property without due process of law; that in detaining, confining, and restraining said Can Pon the inspector and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor acted arbitrarily, and contrary to law and the Constitution of the United States, and without jurisdiction, and that Can Pon is imprisoned and about to be deported without due process of law. Upon this petition the Judge of the District Court issued a writ of habeas corpus, and upon the return to the writ referred the case to a commissioner to take testimony. Upon the testimony so taken the eourt found that there was an investigation had by the inspector, but that it took place and was carried on in the city of Seattle, many miles distant from the port of Sumas ; that neither the applicant nor his counsel was permitted to be present during such investigation, nor permitted to know or inspect the evidence or information gathered by the agents of the inspector until after the rejection of the said applicant; that no opportunity was afforded or given to the applicant or his counsel to be present at the examination of witnesses, nor were they permitted to examine the witnesses, nor were they given an opportunity to refute or explain any statements that may have Leen obtained against said applicant; that, in taking the testimony and examining the applicant’s right to enter the United States, the officers acted in a partial and arbitrary maimer, and abused the discretion reposed in them by law, and obtained testimony in a maimer inconsistent with a fair judicial investigation; that testimony favorable to the applicant was taken during the course of the investigation, but was by the inspector inadvertently withheld from the record on the appeal, and the applicant was denied the benefit thereof on the appeal; that the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor did not at all consider the appeal, but’that the Acting Secretary of the department, who heard and dismissed the appeal, was the same person who as solicitor for the same department recommended the dismissal; that the appeal was not considered on its merits, nor was the ruling of the inspector in charge affirmed; that the appeal was dismissed without consideration upon its merits. The eourt further found upon the evidence that Can Pon was born in Seattle in the year 1892, and that he was entitled to enjoy liberty in his own country, and ordered that he be discharged from custody.