The Labor enquirer., 1882-12-16
Another Hole.

l
From the San Francisco Trrtb
The fifth hole was knocked through the
anti, Chinese treaty stockade last week by
Judge Hoffman, who decided that the col.
lecsor Of the port was authorized to make in.
qufries, and if he should become satisfied
that Chinese passenger was merchant, he
| should permit him to come on shore without
| necessitstlng resort to the courts for per-
mission to land.
The case was that of Fook All Helm, who
claims 10 be m ember of the firm of Su Wo
d Co., of San Frsnci co, All Helm repre-.
sents that he visited China last January, and
has lived there until he took passage on the
steamer Copic for San Francisco. He came
without the certificate proving his calling,
which the law requires merchants, travellers,
etc., to procure, and the collector refused him
permission to land. His case was taken be.
fore the Circuit court, and it was decided
that All Helm could land, certificate or no
certificate. 10 other words, it was declared
| that the restriction law is imperative, as far
as All Helm is concerned
This is the way it was done: A test case is
made, in which the facts alleged can be
clearly established. In this case, All Helm is
un oubtedly merchant Of this city, and has
right to 90 and come under the treaty.
But the law says that right to g. and come
is subject to certaia conditions, the one ap.
plying to All Helm beirg that he should
bring a certificate from his government
showing that he is one of the privileged
classes. This proof he fails to bring, but
the court permits him to land on other proof.
Now An Helms case is to be made a prece
dent upon which other Chinese claiming to
be merchants will urge their right to land
without the proof required by law
| A precedent under our legal system is q
previous decision and is considered binding
Oh all subsequent judges.
/ Ia other words, 'a wrong becomes q right
if it is old enough" That is the plain, En-,
glish Of this damnabe method Of legally
frittering away our rights.
An Helm may be merchant, as he claims
to be- but it does not follow that all who claim
the right to land under that decision will be
merchants. The decision that lets An Helm
| in without proof will let in others. Thus,
All Helm who doubtless had right to come
under the treaty, will be made a kind OF
stalKing horse, behind which others, whose
! rights are less clear, will work their way in.
The decision is wrong. 1t presumes the
power to exist in a court to nullify law that
| has not been declared unconstitutional. 1t is
in fact clear case of nulli6caton. The let.
| ter of the law is thrown aside and its assumed
! in'ent made to stand in its place fOne law
may be subjected to this process of Judicial
demolition, SO may another. The courts thus
become the real law making power.
The legitimate way to get rid OF the Chinese
restriction law, if that be the intention. would
| be>to declare it unconstitutional. The court
! has the power to do this, but in so doing it
makes a record. Justice Field evades the con.
! sequences of such record by series of de,
! cisions which practically pullify the law with.
out an open decision that it is unconstitu'
tional.
All Helm had Just come from China, and
might have procured the certificate required
by law. Failing to do So he was not entitled
to further consideration. 1t was his duty to
conform to the law. 1t was the duty of our
courts to make to make him conform to the
| law, Under the circumstances, the assump.
ton is fair that he has purposely made test
to procure decision under which others, who
cannot prove their rank, shall be admitted on
unsubstantial testimony.