The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-01-11
THE CHINESE TROUBLE.
Report Of the Education and
Labor Committee.
A RESTRICTIVE BILL PRESENTED.
Failure of Efforts to Procure Relief
Through the Executive.
wAsH1saros. D. G.. Jan. 10, 1879


The following report was presented to the House
of Representatives to-day by Representative Willis,
of Kentucky. in behalf of the committee named
The Committee Education and Labor having
had under consideration sundry bills in regard to
Chinese immigration, peg leave % sup M sn 1sa foi
Briefly stated. this bin provides that NO master of
vessel shall take board at any point in China or
elsewhere. than fifteen Chinese passengers with
intent to bring them. shall bring them. within
the United States. The violation of this provision is
made msdemcanor, punishable by fine of 800
for each passenger, and imprisonment for six
months The master is required, under like penal
ties, to report his arrival sworn list Of all
Chinese passengers. The penalty is made lien upon
the vessel The bill becomes operative ON the LIST day
of July, 1870
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.
Waving for the present any consideration of the
merits of the bill the first question is whether such
legislation is within the power of Congress. The
existing treaty with China gives its subjects
limited right OF immigration to the United States.
The second clause OF article G OF the constitution
provides that:
This constitution and tho laws Of tho United States
which shalt be- made thereof and all restes
the supreme law of the land.
II is concluded that any law restricting Chinese
immigration would contravene this provision of the
constitution and would therefore. be null and void.
Such construction cannot be sustained either upon
principle or authority, The objects for which tho
granted under IL. The general welfare. jus
tice. domestic tranquility and the blessings
Of liberty are OF supreme importance. and
cannot DO taken from tho people by any
treaty, however solemnly ratified. The treaty max
ing power is limited by these objects. Moreover.
both in nature and by international law the first duty
self II, therefore, it be true that the
presence OF the Chinese endangers the peace or pros
perity of people, no mere technical considcra-
tons should intervene to prevent an increase OF tho
evil.
The clause of the constitution above quoted does
not, however, admit of the construction coetcnded
for It elevaes treaties from the status of mere com
pacts TO the dignity of laws but does not clothe them
with any additional superiority.
DECISIONS IN POINT.
Laws made in pursuancc of the constitution are
equally binding and authoritative treaties, and,
il last enacted control any contravening treaty.
This conclusion is enforced by numerous decisions,
both of the executive and Judicial departments of
tine government In 1861, in the case OF the Florida
claims. apparent conflict between treaty and
subsequent act Of Congress was decided by Attorney
General Crittcnden i'll these vords:--
of Congress is much supreme law of tire land
treaty they are placed on the same footing and no
preference superiority l. given to the the other
The last expression of the lawgiving power must
prevail. And just for the same reason and on the
principle that subsequent act must prevail
and have eect though inconsistent with prior act
must an act OF Congress have effect though in
consistent with prior treaty. Opinions Attorney
Generals. vol ), p. 345).
10 the same effect is the decision of Attorney Gen.
cral Akerman in the OF the Choctaw Indians He
declares there is nothing in the constitution which
assigns different ranks to treaties and to statutes
Both the orc and the other. when not inconsistent
with the constitution, seem to stand upon the
level and 20 be of equal validity: and. in the case
of all laws cmaneting from an equal authority, the
earlier in date yields to the later Opinions Attor-
new Generals, vol IL, y. 3j1.l
These decisions of the Executive Department,
frmed as they by the teachings of Madison of
hamilton and of Jefferson, have been followed by the
Judiciary.
In the case Of Taylor VS.. Marn--t2d Curtis Circuit
Court reports. page 454)thc Court says speaking by
Justice Curtis)
impossible maintain that under constitution
the senate exclusively the
modify repeal law found in III this
change in treaty could he made without the
sent OF some foreign government. That tho
stituiion designed place country in this
LcIpless condition IL supposon wholly nsmis .ibIe
II he of
Int ncgativcd by the words Of the constitution
That Congress, In words, 10 de-
sistcnt with "a IL cannot therefore. he I'D
that the only method OF from by
the consent OF tho other party TO or decaon OF war
thcmselves scion tious judgments of natonis
Of the utmost gravity bat the power TO do so Is
prerogative of which nation be deprived without
deeply affecting its independence That the people OF the
United states have deprived thor government Of this
power do believe. That II reside somewhere
aud he applicable 20 all cases convinced and feel
doubt that " belongs 90 Congress
Similar opinions have been delivered in Circuit
Courts OF the country. These decisions finally
affirmed by the supreme Court " the United States.
In the Cherokee tobacco case reported in IL Wallace
page l16 the Court says
The effect treaties Of Congress whom IN con
Hct Is settled by the constitution Hut the question
not involved IN any doubt ~ It's proper solution A
treaty superscdc prior net Of Congress q Peters
Curtis IJ4 WoOlworth 1901 In tho referred
these principles applied treaties with foreign
with be
terry They have no higher sa.ctv and mo- creator IN vio
liability immunity legislative invasion can he
claimed for them. The act of Congress prevail
has been done the Of redress with
not With the Judiciary
PREVIOUS ErToRrs AT RELrrr.
The evils Of Chinese immigration have been fully