Chew

Bun Chew, a Chinese alien, appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing a writ of habeas corpus, *221 and remanding the appellant to the custody of the immigration inspector in charge at Los Angeles, Cal. The petition for the writ alleged that Bun Chew was in possession of a Chinese laborer’s certificate of residence, he having registered as such Chinese laborer at Hanford, Cal., on February 17, 1894, but that the inspector had unlawfully detained him in custody and was about to deport him to China. The return to the writ alleged that, pursuant to the powers vested in him by the United States immigration laws, the immigration inspector at Los Angeles had granted Bun Chew a hearing concerning his right to be and remain in the United States, and that on the record thereof the Secretary of Labor had ordered the appellant’s deportation to China, on the ground that he had been found within the United States in violation of the act of Congress approved February 20, 1907 ( 34 Stat. 898 , c. 1134), as amended by the act approved March 26, 1910 ( 36 Stat. 263 , c. 128), in that, at Douglas, Ariz., he had entered the United States from Mexico on or about January 1, 1912, in…

(dissenting). I am unable to agree to the judgment in this case. As shown in the opinion, the appellant entered the United States April 1, 1912, was arrested May 22, 1914, on the ground that he was not entitled to be in this country, and, after trial, was ordered deported March 26, 1915, which was within the 3-year period fixed by the act of Congress referred to in the opinion. No effort on the part of the appellant appears to have been made during that 3-year period to stay any of the proceedings under the statute; so it is unnecessary to consider what, if any, effect should properly he given to any such action on the part of the person against whom the deportation proceedings were taken. The fact, therefore, remains, that the appellant was not deported within the period fixed by Congress for such action, and upon the expiration of that period I am of the opinion that he was entitled to a discharge from custody. If he could he held in custody one day thereafter, I am unable to understand how any court can fix the limit to such further imprisonment, for no court has any power of legislation; and that is purely a matter of legislation, in my opinion. If the 3-year period fixed by…