Opinion of the Court. to Chinese laborers who were here on the seventeenth day of November, eighteen hundred and eighty, expressly recognizes the fact that the treaty of that date gave them "the right to go from and come to the United States." Now, the argument in behalf of the government is, that, since Congress made provision for certificates to be furnished to those who were entitled to demand them, it did not intend to recognize the right to return of any Chinese laborer who, being in the United States at the date of the treaty, was not here when the act of 1882 was passed. Assuming, always, that there was a purpose, in good faith, to abide by the stipulations of the treaty, this argument necessarily implies, that, in the judgment of Congress, the treaty did not secure to any Chinese laborer the right of going and coming of his own free will, except to those in this country at the date of the treaty, who remained here continuously until the original act was passed, or who had returned by the latter date; in other words, that a Chinese laborer who was here on the 17th of November, 1880, lost the right to return, so far as that right was secured by treaty, if he left at any time—no matter for what purpose or for how brief a period—prior to, and had not returned before, the passage of the act of 1882. But the treaty is not subject to any such interpretation. To give it that interpretation would be, in effect, to interpolate in its second article, after the words "Chinese laborers who are now in the United States," the words "and who shall continue to reside therein." The plaintiff in error left this country after the ratification of the treaty, having the right, secured by its articles, to return, of his own free will, without being subjected to burdens or regulations that materially interfere with its enjoyment. The legislative enactments in question should receive such a construction, if possible, as will save that right, while giving full effect to the intention of Congress. That result can be attained, consistently with recognized rules of interpretation. Lex non intendit aliquid impossibile is a familiar maxim of the law. The supposition should not be indulged that Congress, while professing to faithfully execute treaty stipulations, and recognizing the fact that they secured to a certain class Opinion of the Court. the "right to go from and come to the United States," intended to make its protection depend upon the performance of conditions which it was physically impossible to perform. Besides, said this court in United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 486, "General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter." See also Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 147, 153. So in Perry v. Skinner, 2 M. & W. 471, it was said: "The rule by which we are to be guided is to look at the precise words, and to construe them in their ordinary sense, unless it would lead to absurdity or manifest injustice; and if it should, so to vary them as to avoid that which certainly could not have been the intention of the legislature. We must put a reasonable construction upon their words." Lake Shore Railway Co. v. Roach, 80 N. Y. 339; Commonwealth v. Kimball, 24 Pick. 366, 370; Campbell's Case, 2 Bland, 209; Sedgwick Statutory and Constitutional Law, 191. What injustice could be more marked than, by legislative enactment, to recognize the existence of a right, by treaty, to come within the limits of the United States and, at the same time, to prescribe, as the only evidence permissible to establish it, the possession of a collector's certificate, that could not possibly have been obtained by the person to whom the right belongs? Or to prevent the re-entry of a person into the United States upon the ground that he did not, upon his arrival from a foreign port, produce a certain certificate, under the hand and seal of a collector, and upon forms prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, which neither that nor any other officer was authorized or permitted to give prior to the departure of such person from this country? Or what incongruity is more evident than to impose upon a collector the duty of going on board of a vessel, about to sail from his district for a foreign port, and making and recording a list of its passengers, of a particular race, showing their individual, family, and tribal names in full, their age, occupation, last place of residence, Opinion of the Court. physical marks and peculiarities, when such vessel had sailed long before the law passed which imposed that duty on the collector? These questions suggest the consequences that must result, if it is held that Congress intended to abrogate the treaty with China, by imposing conditions upon the enjoy ment of rights secured by it, which are impossible of perform ance. But there is another view which tends to show the unsoundness of the construction upon which the government insists. It is this: If Chinese laborers who were here at the date of the treaty, or who came within ninety days next after the passage of the act of 1882, being out of the country when the act of 1884 was passed, can re-enter only upon producing the certificate required by the latter act, then Congress must have intended to exclude even those who were in this country at the time the act of 1882 was passed, and who, upon going away, received the certificate mentioned in it; for the certificate prescribed by the act of 1882 is not the certificate prescribed by that of 1884; they differ in several particulars; and yet, if the act of 1884 is to be taken literally, all Chinese laborers are excluded who do not produce the very certificate mentioned in it. The original act expressly provides that the certificate prescribed therein "shall entitle the Chinese laborer to whom the same is issued to return to and re-enter the United States, upon producing and delivering the same" to the collector of the district at which he seeks to re-enter. Congress did not intend, by indirection, to withdraw from those who received and relied upon the certificate mentioned in that act the privilege of returning, simply because they did not (and could not) produce the certificate required by the amendatory act, passed during their rightful absence. Those who left the country with certificates under the original act were entitled to return upon the production of those certificates. If, then, the act of 1884 did not defeat the rights given by that of 1882, it follows that there are Chinese laborers who, having been in the United States prior to July 5, 1884, may re-enter without producing the certificate required by the act of the latter date; and so the argument that Congress intended to exclude from the Opinion of the Court. country Chinese laborers of every class who did not produce the certificate prescribed by the act of 1884, fails in respects essential to sustain the judgment below. A construction of the original and amendatory acts which saves the rights of the plaintiff in error rests upon precisely the same grounds as does a construction of the amendatory act which saves the rights of those obtaining certificates under the original act, who did not seek to re-enter the country until after the act of 1884 was passed. There are other sections of the act of Congress upon which, it was suggested in argument, the judgment below could be sustained. Some stress is laid upon the fifth section, which provides that" any Chinese laborer mentioned in section four of this act, being in the United States and desiring to depart from the United States by land, shall have the right to demand and receive, free of charge or cost, a certificate of identification similar to that provided for in section four of this act to be issued to such Chinese laborers as may desire to leave the United States by water; and it is hereby made the duty of the collector of customs of the district next adjoining the foreign country to which said Chinese laborer desires to go, to issue such certificate, free of charge or cost, upon application by such Chinese laborer, and to enter the same upon registrybooks to be kept by him for the purpose, as provided for in section four of this act." The argument, based upon this section, is, that the phrase "being in the United States" indicates a purpose to exclude all Chinese laborers not in the United States at the date of the original act. In our judgment, that phrase throws light upon the true meaning of the fourth section, in this-that, as the fifth section prescribed a certificate for those "being in the United States" who desired to depart by land, so the fourth section prescribed a certificate for those being in the United States who desired to depart by water. In each case, the provision is for those who are rightfully here, and, therefore, have an opportunity to demand and receive the required certificate, and not for those who are protected by the treaty, but who, being absent from the country, when the law was enacted Opinion of the Court. making provision for a collector's certificate, could not demand and receive it. Neither section purports to defeat previously existing rights by imposing conditions upon their enjoyment which cannot be satisfied. It is also said, in support of the judgment, that the sixth section is significant, in that it prescribes the mode for the coming to this country of Chinese persons, "other than a laborer who may be entitled by said treaty and this act to come within the United States," but fails to provide the means for the return and identification of Chinese laborers who were entitled by the treaty to return, but who were out of the country when the act of Congress was passed. But this argument, like the one just alluded to, only proves that Congress, while making provision for the coming of persons who were entitled to come, other than laborers, omitted to make special provision in reference to the latter, and, consequently, left them to stand upon their rights as secured by the treaty, and, if their right to enter the United States was questioned, to prove in some way, consistent with the general principles of law, that they belonged to the class entitled to go and come. Some reliance was also placed upon the implication arising from that clause of the twelfth section which declares that "no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land, without producing to the proper officer of customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons seeking to land from a vessel." We do not perceive that any argument based upon these words meets the view that the act of Congress, in respect of Chinese laborers entitled to go and come, is inapplicable to those who were here at the date of the treaty, but, by reason of absence when the act of Congress took effect, could not obtain the required certificate. If, however, the twelfth section should be held to forbid the entrance of Chinese persons of every class into this country, by land, except upon the certificate required by the fourth section, it would not follow that a Chinese laborer entitled by the treaty to go and come at pleasure, and who was out of the country when the act of Congress was passed, could not re-enter by |