20? U. S? A?gum?t for' De?emd?t Lu Error. There was evidence before the court in plaintiff in error's favor, which created a presumption of the rightfulness of plain- tiff in error's presence here at all times, which presumption was just as conclusive as an adiudication , unless it was over- throwh by positive, direct and competent evidence of fraud to the contrary. And this conclusive evidence in plaintiff in error's favor was the certificate, with all its indorsements, under which he was admitted into the United States. There was no competent evidence to overthrow it or even in contra- diction thereof, the findings of December 30 bein�rely gratuitous, without authority or sanction in law; and the rightfulness or lawfnlness of plaintiff in error's coming, entry and ep. ntinued residence here is therefore undisputed in the evidence. Un/ted Stat? v. Sing Tuck, 194 U.S. 161; States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253; Andrews v. Eastera Oregdn Land Co, 203 U.S. 127. The burden of proof in a case of this nature is on the Government. Moy $t?j v. United States, 147 Fed. Rep. 697. This court will review the evidence and find for itself the faet?, particularly in view of the fact that the district judge and com- missioner misconstrued the treaty and laws and their finding? of fact were made what they are only because of their mis- conceived idea of the true intent gnd meaning of said treaty and laws. Tom Hong v. United States, 193 U.S. 517; Uni- ted States v. $e/d Bow, 139 Fed. Rep. 56; Moy $u?y v. United States, 147 Fed. Rep. 697. Mr. Assistant Attorney Ge?ral Ccoley for defendant in error: The procedure followed was regular, and satisfied the re- quirements of the law. The complaint should not he tested by the technical rules of pleading in criminal cases. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 728; Chin Bak Kan v. United States, 186 U.S. 193, 199; Ah How 'v. United States, 193 U.S. 65, 77. The policy of the law in regard to a dei?ortatjon proceeding
�
