New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-10-06
PONG Ill LIMOS CASE.

|
The Chinefc Exclusion Act has been the sub
| Jet of numerous judicial decisions in the brief
! time since it became a law, the latest and most
! important Of which is that Of Justice Field, of
| the United States Supreme Court, in San
! Francisco, against the admission of Chinese
! from IlOngkOug The point made in their
| behalf was that the treaty and the act of Con-
! gress contemplated the exclusion only Of sub
| ircts of the Power with which the treaty was
made, whereas Hong Kong is a British depend
ency. A case Of this kind arose in Boston somr
! months ago, and Judges Nelson and Lowell, Of
! the United States Circuit Court, taking the
| view Just stated, permitted An ShOng, a Chi
ncse laborer from HongKorg, to land in Mas,a-
| chusctts, in ppte Of the act of CoBgrcss. This
| decision naturally caused alarm on the Pacific
| Coast Hong Kong itself is Il small island with
Il Chinese population not much over 100000
by a census taken ten years ago, but it is still
the cntlep6t Of the custom trade of all nations,
and the natural gateway, if not the starting
place. of a large proportion Of the emigration
from China. Most of the Chinese now in this
country are said to have come from that port
IL is obvious that if this decision was to be aC-
Ceptcd as the true construction Of the act, the
stream of Chinese immigration would soon be
flowing toward our shores again. All Sin from
Pckin looks very like All SIN from Hong Kong,
and if he takes passage at the latter port, who
is to prove that lie was not born there, IA Pong
Ali Lung, the laborer in the San Francisco case,
was, after nOng.Kong became British pos
session
Justice Fields decision, the text of which
has now been received, takes issue with the
Massachusetts view and as it is the decision of
a Supreme Court Judge, will be regarded az
practically overriding it, though both are de-
cisions of Circuit Courts. Justice Fields opin-
ion, we believe, will be accepted as n sound in
depreciation of the law. lie shows, after de-
scrbing the evils OF Chinese immigration, that
the law lOrDids any master Of a vessel TO bring
to this country any Chinese lahorrr from any
foreign port or place. The exclusion is not Of
subjects Of China, but of Chinese laborer,.r
and Pong All Lung is lahorcr having "alI
the pecnliaritics of the subjects of China
Justice Field gays, although he claims TO be
British subject Justice Field is not swcryed
by the argument that the act Of Congress went
further in the direction of exclusion than the
treaty, which necessarily dealt only with Chi
nose subjects The act Is, like the trra v n part
of the supreme law Of the land. Neither has
authority over the other. 4" The courts" JUS
tce Field says, cannot refuse to give elect to
the laws of Congress, however much they
"may seem to conflict with the slipulatons of
the TREATY. Whether a treaty has been yio-
lated by our Government in It's legislative de-
"partment, 50 as to he the proper occasion of
complaint by the foreign Government, il not
"A judicial question. To the courts it is simply
L" the case Of conflicting laws, the last modify
"ing or superseding the former" Justice
Field adds his belief that the law was intended
to do more than give eject to the treaty, and
that his construction renders " all its provisions
consistent with each other" Any other con-
structicn certainly conflicts with the intent of
the law and its plain terms.
1t is not likely that Great Britain will take
offence because Pong Ali Lung cannot land ut
San Francisco. Chinese immigration has