Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-09-24
THE NEW COLLECTOR AND THE RE.
STRICTI0N ACT.

Judge Hager Is known 10 be good law
yer He would scarcely commit himself Ia
a proposition of law unless he was con-
WINGED from examination of the law that
1t was sound. In interviews regarding the
Chinese Restriction Act he has permitted
himself to be reported as saying that he
thinks the Courts have been in error in
hearing habeas corpus cases in the Chinese
Immigration matter. lie says:
have often asked myself, If the Chinese nv
our laws are prohibited from landing on orr
SHORES what right have they, so prohibited nm
der That condition to apply to our Courts for
feilei from the operation of chat law If By any
act OF the courts they are permitted to land, to
mat extent the Restriction Act is evaded.
should the Courts take personal jurisdiction of
Shlnesc VINO are expressly prohibited from
tSnd.lg II Is legal question, but think the
tles-the collector of the Port, for Instance
whose duIy It IS to administer the Restriction
Act, decides In the case OF certain Chinese that
ne IS prohibited from landing and the Courts
thereafter issue Il writ of habeas corDus and
merely bring that certain Chinese within the
jurisdiction OF that Court. he is brought there
contrary TO law; his being so brought there is an
evasion OF the strict letter of the law He iS
permitted to go at large, on bail, and in so much
enjoys the privilege of onewho has legal right
whose IS
70 administer the law has already decided that
ne mas no legal right to be here The Chinese
may forfeit MS bail, and thereby totally eyades
tne Restriction Act.
10 this 1t may be responded that the
writ Of habeas corpus issues upon the ale
CATION duly made that any human being is
Illegally restrained of his liberty. That a
Chlnaman on board ship in the harbor
OF San Francisco, for whom an application
OF matchmaker is made, is within the
jurisdiction of the Court and that it cannot
refuse 10 issue the writ, and that no official
VIII dare to resist its service. But to this
the Judge replies: The restriction is for
executive, not judicial administration
Thus Chinese passenger deprived of A
claimed right to land should appeal to the
President of the United States. The mat
ter would then become an international
one, as it should be. But suppose to this
1t is replied that the Courts where the
passenger is denied landing must, in order
10 force the man to his appeal to the Pres
ident, refuse his application for writ OF
habeas corpus upon the statement that the
detention is under the Restriction Act, and
that to do this would be extra judicial. TIC
this Judge Hager replies:
doubt if a Chinese whom the Collector has
decided has not complied with the reouire.
mentS OF the Restriction Act has any stains
whlch entities him to a hearing in the Federal
Courts Take a common case for instance The
AOlAeCtOr OF the Port
aOnlnAIhah claim of right TO land finds that
ne has no right under the law. The Conrts
"A tt ~ issue writ OF habeas corpus. direct
ga 10 the master OF the vessel from which the
Mongol seeks to land, reciting that such master
IS restraining the Chinaman of his rights aud
9loertles. But such is not the fact. The master
Is not restraining the Chinaman, for he would
be glad TO land him; and, moreover the Mon
Soi has no liberty to land under the law If tho
master were not anxious TO land the Chinamar
ana told the truth, he would reply to the wri
that II was not he but the United States author
liles who were restraining the Chinaman TO
the reason that he did not comply with the re
strictlon law.
From all which we may conclude tina
as soon as Judge Hager takes his position
as Collector of the Port of San Francisc,
we shall havet this new issue presented, an,
we trust ii viii take the form O
an open but amicable conflict between tn
Federal Courts and the Collector. We ar
py no means settled in opinion that tn
Collector Is right, but sincerely hope tina
he Is, and that the Courts will refuse I,
take jurisdiction of cases where the Col
leetor reports that the party is held for tn
reason that he has no right to enter tn
country, and that in the eye of the law h
Is not really in the country at all an,
therefore not entitled to the PRIVILEGE
the writ of habeas corpus.