The complaint in this case charges the defendant with a violation of the sixth section of the act of congress of May 5, 1892, commonly called the "Geary Act.” It alleges that the defendant was at the time of the passage of the act a Chinese laborer within the limits of the United States, and en *592 titled to remain therein, and that he failed to procure the certificate of residence required hy its sixth section of all such resident Chinese laborers, and that he was found after one year from its passage without such certificate within the jurisdiction of the United States, and within this judicial district. The evidence in the (jase clearly shows that the defendant is, and has been for several years last past, a gambler, engaged in conducting games of chance in this city. In other cases submitted with the present one the evidence shows that the defendants, in addition to being gamblers, belong to the criminal class commonly called “highbinders.” The sixth section of the act in question applies alone to “Chinese laborers within the limits of the United States at the time of the passage of this act, and who are entitled to remain in the United States.”

The question to be determined is, what is the true construction of the words “Chinese laborers,” as here used by congress? Etymologically, a laborer is one who labors. In that broad sense, a practicing physician is a laborer, and a hard one, too. So, also, is the practicing lawyer. In that sense the professional journalist is a laborer; as is, also, every minister of the gospel. In the same sense every merchant is a laborer. But in neither speech nor writing is such the common or ordinary acceptation of the term “laborer.” Worcester thus defines it: “One who labors; one regularly employed at some hard.work; a workman; an operative; often used of one who gets a livelihood at coarse, manual labor, as distinguished from- an artisan or professional man.” And the definition given by Webster is to the same effect. Neither of these considerations furnishes, in my opinion, a true solution of the question. Undoubtedly a gambler is not a “laborer,” in the ordinary and popular meaning of that term; nor is a “highbinder,” whose avocation is understood to be the commission of any and every species of crime. In the act in question congress did not define the terms “Chinese laborers” employed by it. To ascertain the true meaning of the words so used the purpose of the act must be considered. As its sixth section, providing, as it does, for the expulsion from this country of all Chinese laborers within it at the time of the passage of the act who should fail to comply with its provisions, whether they came here at the invitation of our government or otherwise, in its stringency went far beyond the provisions of the existing treaties between the two countries, it would be altogether unreasonable to hold that the words “Chinese laborers” in that very section of the act were used in any narrower sense than were the same words in the treaty under which congress was legislating. It is pertinent and important, therefore, to inquire what is the scope of those words in that treaty.

Under the treaty of 1868, known as the “Burlingame Treaty,” as construed in practice, the Chinese had the absolute right to come in any numbers to the United States. The trouble caused by the great influx of them induced the United States government to ask, through a commission composed of Messrs. James B. An *593 gell, John F. Swift, and William Henry Trescot, that the Chinese government consent to such a modification of the Burlingame treaty as would enable it, without raising unpleasant questions of treaty construction, to regulate, limit, suspend, or prohibit Chinese immigration. Commissioners on the part of China were also appointed, and after the necessary preliminary negotiations the United States commissioners made to the Chinese commissioners the following proposition: >

On the 22d of, October, 1880, the Chinese commissioners submitted to the commissioners of the United States a memorandum in reply, which, so far as it refers to article 2 of the proposition of the United States commissioners, is as follows:

At a conference of the commissioners of the two countries, held October 23, 1880, the Cliinese commissioners submitted to the United States commissioners the project of a treaty, article 2 of which was in these words:

In reporting that conference to the secretary of state, Mr. Evarts, the United States commissioners, under date November 3, 1880, sa'id, 'among other things, that, the proposition being in Chinese, “we could only gather its general purport from a rapid translation by Mr. Holcombe. Mr. Trescot, on behalf of the commissioners, informed the Chinese commissioners that we would take it into consideration, but that we could and ought to say at once that there were some points which were inadmissible, and could not be received by us even for consideration. The first was the limitation of the provisions of the treaty to Chinese' immigration into California. To this the Chinese commissioners replied that such was not their intention, but, as they had been led to suppose from ail they heard that objection to such immigration existed chiefly, if not only, in California, they had suggested this form, in order that its discussion might lead to a better understanding. * * * Another point was the exclusion of ‘artisans’ from the class of Chinese labor whose immigration was forbidden by the proposed provisions. In reference to this Mr. Trescot stated that it was an inadmissible limitation upon that definition of Chinese labor which had been suggested by the United States commissioners. It was deemed best by the United States commissioners,” continues the report, “not to do more at this interview than signify their great disappointment at the scope and tenor of the Chinese project, and to reserve a full review of its provisions until it had been translated.” Id. p. 182. Subsequently, the United States commissioners submitted to the Chinese commissioners a counter project, articles 1 and 2 of which are as follows:

The United States commissioners accompanied this last proposition with a memorandum, in which they said, among other th ngs:

The respective commissioners subsequently agreed upon a treaty, uhich was afterwards signed and ratified by the respec.ive governments, the articles of which relating to the question under consideration being as follows:

The United States commissioners, in communicating, under date November (5, 1880, to ihe secretary of state, Mr. Evarts, their agreement with (lie Chinese commissioners upon the articles of the treaty, said, among other things:

A.S finally tli-af i ed and agreed upon, the words “Chinese laborers” wore not defined; and so their true meaning in the treaty, as in the statute, is a matter for construction.

The history of the negotiations, as already detailed, leading up to the making of ihe treaty, (dearly shows that throughout them the United States commissioners insisted that the words “Chinese laborers’’ should include all Immigration other than (hat for teaching, trade, travel, study, and curiosity. The first proposal on the *596 part of the United States commissioners so to define them in the treaty itself met on the part of the Chinese commissioners, not a refusal, but with this response:

This was followed by a proposal on the part of the Chinese commissioners of articles in which the word “actual” was inserted immediately before the words “Chinese laborers,” and inserting-•the word “artisans” among the privileged classes. These suggestions met with distinct refusals on the part of the United States commissioners, and both of those words were omitted from the treaty as finally agreed upon, signed, and ratified. Their insertion would have given the words “Chinese laborers” the ordinary and popular meaning of laborers as defined by the lexicographers, to wit, those engaged in hard, manual work. Their omission, under the circumstances stated, clearly shows that it was intended that they should have a broader meaning. Moreover, had the intention been to confine the words “Chinese laborers” to those engaged in hard, manual work, the inhibition would have applied to none other, and there would have been no occasion to make a specific provision, as was done by article 2, for the coming to this country of teachers, students, merchants, or those for curiosity, together with their body and household servants. There was, therefore, good ground for the claim, reported by the United States commissioners to have been made by the Chinese commissioners, to the effect that article 2 of the treaty as agreed upon “did by exclusion provide that nobody should be entitled to claim the benefit of the general provisions of the Burlingame treaty but those who went to the United States for purposes of teaching, study, mercantile transactions, travel, or curiosity.” And that such was also the understanding of the United States commissioners is distinctly declared in their report to the secretary of state, already quoted. Read, therefore, in the light of the accompanying-proceedings, it is clear that the words “Chinese laborers” employed in the treaty of 1880 are not limited to those who do hard, manual work, but that they are broad enough in their true meaning and intent to include Chinese gamblers and “highbindersand, for the reasons already given, it is manifest that congress, in passing the act of May 5, 1892, did not use the words “Chinese laborers” in any narrower sense than were the same words in the treaty under which it was legislating.

It results that there must be findings for the government, and an order that the defendant be deported.