Sacramento daily record-union., 1883-09-26
THE CHINESE DECISION
as TO THE MEANING OF TIE EZ-
CLUSIoE ACT.
A Chinese Laborer. Wherever Born, Can
not be landed in the
United States.

! Field and Judge Sawyer, delivered or
Monday in San Francisco, in the habsat
corpus case of All Lung, the Hongkong
English Chinaman. a large number OF
members of the bar and other citizens
listened with marked attention to the
reading of the decision by the Justice:
In the Circuit Court of the United
States for the District of California. In
the matter of Pong All Lung, on habeas
corpus-The petitioner sets forth that he
is unlaWf fully restrained Of his liberty, and
detained on board of the steamship Oceanic,
by IFS Captain, in the harbor of San Fran.
cisco; that the alleged ground of his de-
tentioR is that he comes within the Act of
Congress OF May 6. 1882, "to execute GER
taln treaty stipulaEi0ns relating to Chinese.
% Stats. 5S).
The petitioner Is Chinese by race,
language and color, and has ali the pecu-
liarites OF the subjects OF China. He is
also q laboreT; but he was born on the
Island OF Hopgkong after it was ceded
TO Great Britain. Ia claims, therefore,
TO be British subjeot, and as such ex-
empt from the Act OF Congress-. Bus for
this fact of birth In the British domin.
ions, It is conceded that he would be
within the provisions Of the Act. Does
this fact take him cut Of thern? The
answer to this question depends upon the
meaning of the Act, and not upon the
Government to which the petitioner owes
allegiance. Undoubtedly the Courts will
always construe legislation in harmony
with treaty stipuiatioss, where it's sole
purpose IS to carry those ssipulationa into
effect It will not be presumed, in the
absence of clear language TO that purport,
that Congress intended TO disregard the
requirements of treaty with foreign
| Government, or to abrogate any Of It's
clauses. At the same time, an Act of
| Congress must be construed according to
It's manifest intent, and so far as the
/ Courts are concerned, must be enforced
a treaty is IN its nature a contract be.
tween two nations, and by writers on
| public law is generally go treated, and not
as having by itself the force of legisla-
tive act. The Constitution of the United
| States, however, places both treaties and
laws, made IN pursuance thereof, in the same
category, and declare them to be the
| supreme law OF the land. It has not given
| to either paramount authority over the
other. So far as 3 treaty operates by its
own force without legislation, it is to be
regarded by the Courts as equivalent to
legislative act, but nothing further. II the
subject to which it relates also falls within
those upon which Congress can act, It's leg.
slation may modify the provisions of the
treaty or suspend them entirely. The i'm
migration of foreigners to the United
States, ard the conditions upon which they
shall be permitted to remain, are subjects
which may be matters OF treaty stipulation
and also of Congressional action. No
treaty can abrogate the power of Congress
in that respect. As said by Mr.. Justice
Curtis in the case Of Taylor vs.. Morton
Inasmuch as treaties must continue to
operate as part OF our municipal law, and
be obeyed by the people, applied by the
Judiciary and executed by the President,
| while they continue unrepealed and mas.
much as the power Of repeating these mu.
nicipal laws must reside some where. and
no body other than Congress possesses it,
then legislative power is applicable to such
cases whenever they relate to subjects
which the Constitution has placed under
that legislative power" z Curtis Cir
CT PEI, ass
An Act of Congress then upon q subject
within its legislative power Is as binding
upon the Courts IS a treaty On the same
subject. Both are binding except as the
latter conflicts or interferes win the other. /
If the nation with whom we have made the !
treaty Objects TO the action of the L3eisla. /
tive Department, it may present its COM
plant to the Political Department and take
such other measures as it may deem that |
justice to its own citizens or subjects re.
quires. The Courts cannot heed such /
Il - =.
laws Of Congress, however much thsy NAV
seem to conflict with the stipulations Of |
the treaty. Whether treaty hss been |
violated by our Government in its Legisla.
tive Departments, so as to be the proper |
occasion Of complaint by the forsicn Gov /
ernment, is not 4 judicial question. To |
the Courts it Is simply the case of conflict |
ing laws, the last modifying or superseding |
the former.
The question then is, What is the true !
construction of the Restriction Ac.i /
Whom does it embrace? Some assistance
in arriving at correct conclusion will be
had by reference TO the treaties with China
and the circumstances leading to the pas
sage of the Act.
In the Fifth Article of the treaty of
July, 1868. commsnly known az the Bur
lingame Treaty, the contracting parties
declare that "they recoeniza the inherent
inalienable right Of man to change his home
and allegiance and also the mutual ad-
vantage of the free migration and emigra.
ton of their citizsns and subjects re.
spectively from one country to the other,
FOR the purposes of curiosity, of trade, or
as permanent residents. In its Sixth Ar.
ticle they declare that "citizens of the
United States visiting or residing in China
shall enjoy the same privileges, immuni-
ties or exemptions IN respect to travel or
residence as may there be enjoyed by the
citizens or subjects OF the most favored
patton, and reciprooally Chinese subjects
visiting or residing in the United Ssates
shall enjoy the same privileges, immunitiss
and exemptions in respect to travel or
residence as may be enjoyed by the citi-
zsns or subjects of the most favored ma
tion."
Bsfore these articles were adopted
great number of Chinese had emierated to
this STATE and after their adoption the
immigration was largely increased. Bat
notwithstanding the favorable provisions
of the treaty, 1t was found impossible for
them to assimilats with our people. Their
physical characteristics and habits kept
them as distinct and separate az though
still living in China. They engaged in all
the industries and pursuits of the State
they came in competition with white labor
ers in every direction and their frugal
habits, the absence of families, their sin-
gular ability to live in narrow quarters
without apparent injury to health, their
contentmens with the eimplest fare, gave /
them in this competition great advantages
over our laborers and mechanics They
could live with apparent comfort on what !
would prove almost starvation to white
men Oar people are not content, and
never should be, with the means of bare
they must have something
beyond this for the comforts OF home :
and the support of family and the educa-
tion of children. Competition with chi /
nese labor under the conditions mentioned, {
was necessarily irritating and exasperating, 6
i L. a