Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/639

 632 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �those appoînted for this purpose under the law. If the pro- ▼isions of the act affect a larger number of Chinese than of any other ciass, it is not on account of any discriminations , made by the law, but only because under their customs there is a much larger nnmher of disinterinents and removals by them than by any others. In re Rudolph, supra, and cases cited, �There is nothing in the provision in question in conflict with article 4 of the Burlingame treaty, which provides that "Chinese subjects of the United States shall enjoy entire liberty of conscience, and shall be free from ail disabilities or persecutions on account of their religions faith or worship." Concediîig that the religious sentiment of the Chinese requirea that they shall remove the remains of their deceased friends to China for final burial, thsre is nothing in the provision forbidding or unduly obstructing the performance of that rite or religions duty, and nothing that does not equally apply to other aliens and citizens. It is only provided that, in the performance of that duty, proper precautions shall be taken not to endanger the health of the people among whom they have elected to live, and have died and once been buried. The fee established is only to liquidate the portion of expense of supervision and inspection imposed upon the public result- ing from their custom ; and, like the other expenses of disin- terment and removal, which the surviving friends voluntarily incur, is necessarily incident to their peculiar practice. The customs of Chinese in this respect renders the supervision necessary and proper; and we can perceive no impropriety in charging them with the expense incident to it. The amount of $10 may seem large, but it is charged alike to ail, and is not so large as to justify us in holding that it was manifestly intended to obstruct the performance of the duty; and we do not underatand that the amount is regarded as objectionable if the charge is otherwise legal. Besides, it may well be questioned whether the treaty-making power would extend to the protection of practices, under the guiso of religious sentiment, deleterious to the public health or morals, or to a subject-matter withinthe acknowledged police ����