Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-12-09
PRIVILEGED CHINANTEN.
LsbOrers who were In the Country Prior
to May 6, 1882. May Return.

WASHINGTON, Dec. S.-A decision was
rendered by the Supreme Court of the
United States this afternoon in the impOr-
tant California case of Chew Heong, plain
tiff in error, against the United States, a
test case involving the construction of the
so-called Chinese restriction acts of May
6, 1882, and July 5, 1884. Chew Heong,
the plaintiff in error, is a Chinese labOrer
and subject of the Emperor of China.
He was IN the United States on Nov. Il. 1850,
the date Of the adoption of the last treaty be-
tween China and the United States, and he
renamed therein until June, 1881, when he
went TO Honolulu, returning thereIrOm to
san Francisco in September last. As the re-
strictiOn act of 1852 had not become a law
when he left the United States, he did not of
course. provide himself with the certificate
which is prescribed as prerequisite to re-en-
trance, and upon returning to San Francisco
IN september, 1884, the custom house author
tiles refused to allow him to land, on the
ground that to permit him to do So would be
to violate the restriction act. He thereupon
sued out writ Of habeas corpus and brought
the case before the United States Circuit
Court, where 1t was heard by Justice Field
and Judge Sawyer.
JUDGES DISAGREE.
The Judges were divided in opinion, Justice
Field holding that laborer could not enter
the United States without the certeg ficate
prescribed by section of the amended re-
strctlOn act. Judge Sawyer, on the contrary,
held that Chinese laborer who was in the
United States on Nov. Z, 1880, and departed
therefrOm prior to the passage of the restrlc-
ton act, could return without any certificate.
The Judges thereupOn certified a division of
opinion. Judgment was entered in accord
ance with the decision Of Justice Field, and
the case brought here by a. writ of
error. This court holds that the Chinese
restriction act Of May 6, 1882, as an amend
ment requiring a collectors certificate as the
only evidence of the right of a Chinese
laD0rer TO re-enter the United States is not
applicable to Chinese labOrer who resided
in this country at the date of the treaty of
1850, but who left this country before the act
OF May ., 1882, was passed and did not seek to
re-enter until after the act of July 5, 1884 was
passed. The right of such laborer to re-enter
was secured by the treaty of 1880. and the
court holds that Congress did not intend to
violate that right.
The decision of the cause here is based on
the ground that the acts of Congress did not
necessarily conflict with the treaty, and that
the duty of the court was, if possible. to make
the statute and treaty stand together. On
that ground the court holds that Congress did
not intend by its legislation to violate any
rights previously acquired under the treaty
of 1880. The opinion is by Justice Harlan
A DISSENTING OPINION.
Justice Field delivered for himself and JUS
tlce Bradley a long dissenting opinion, in
which he maintained that the construction
given by the majority of the court to the re-
strlctlon acts was in direct conflict with the
plain language of both of them, and rendered
nugatory the whole provisions which had
been inserted with sedulOus care. 'By the
amendatOry act " he says, sit is declared
that the certificate which a Chinese laborer
must obtain shall be the only evidence per-
mlsslble TO establish his right of re-entry to
the United States. This declaration applies
to the certificate issued under either act. By
1t the uoor Is effectually closed
10 an Parol evidence and perjures
which daily characterize that evidence.
Nothing IN my Judgment can take the place
of this certificate or dispense with it, and
see only. mischief and trouble following
an opposite conclusion. All the bitterness
which has heretofore existed on the subject OF
the immigration of Chinese labOrers will be
revived, and will be intensified, and our
courts on the Pacific coast will be crowded
with applicants to land who were never before
on our shores, and yet who can produce a
multitude of witnesses to establish their
former csldence whose testimony cannot be
refuted, and yet cannot be rejected cannot
hut nope that Congress will at an early day
speak on tins subject, and declare that it
mems what 1t seems to me it has already
plainly said"
THE HEAD MONEY CASES.
A decision was also rendei ed by the court
to-day IN the so called head money cases.
of Edge ct al. and the Cunard Steamship
company against William IL. Robertson, Col
lector OF the Port of New York. These cases
an lnvoIVed the same question, viz: the con-
sIlIutlonauty OF an act of Congress entitled
IAN act to regulate emigration" approved
Aug. ), 1883, by the provisions of which col
lectors are required to collect from the
master, owner or consignee of every
vessel arriving from a foreign port
the sum of so cents for ever passenger brought
lnto port OF the United States who is not a
citizen, such sums to be used for the benefit
ana care OF Immigrants and for the regua-
tlOn OF immigration. The court holds that the
statute is valid and constitutional, and that
so 1ar as It's provisions may be found to be in
conflict with any treaty with foreign ma
ton, statute must prevail in all the judicial
courts OF this country. The judgment of the
circuit Court sustaining the law is affirmed
IN all cases. The opinion is by Justice Miller.