?09 U.& 8yU?va applies to the Sault Ste. Marie, whatever it be called. The fact- that it is a boundary has not been held to make a difference. The riparian proprietors upon it own to the center. Ryan v. B?wa, 18 Michigan, 196; $cwa?am v. W/u?/?, 113 Michigan., 565, 567; K?mp v. $?]?, 134 Michigan, 676. See. also $cra? to? v. W/?e?r, 57 Fed. Rep. 803, 812; $. C., 179 U.S. 141, 163; I?rman v. B?r?on, 8 Michigan, 18; Wa2r Comm'?sio?'8 v. D?, 117 Miehi?n? 458, 462. We see no plausible ground for the ?laim of the United States. LIU HOP FONG ?. UNITED STATE?. ERROR TO ? DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE � DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. No. 181. Argu? March 18. l?.--D?elcl?d A?rll?0. 190? Under the pmvkions of i 13 of the act of September 13, 1888, e. 1015, 25 8tat. 476 and i 3 of the act of May 15, 1890, c. 60, 27 Stat. 25, the appeal ?ivca to a Chln?m?J? from an order of deportation made by a commissioner ?s a trial d? m?o before the district judge to which he is entitled before he eau be ordered to he deported, and the order cannot he made on a tnmserlpt of pm? before the eomn?'oner. After a comm?ioner has made and filed a certified transcript in the ca?e of a Ch;?Aro? or?l?,?md by him to be deported h? authority over the matter ?-ck. Them is no statutory right to ?-? up and file additional find- While a certificate issued as pmvlded by ! 3 of the Treaty of Decemher, 1894 between the United States ?nd China to entitle Chinese subjects to cater the U?ted ?tatessmay be overeome by proper evidence, and may not have the effect of a judicial determination, Whca a Chi?m?n has been admitted to the United States on a certificate made in con- ' formity with the' treaty, he cannot be deported for having fraudulcatly rotered the United States unle? them is competent evid?ce to overcoma
�
