Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-04-01
THE ANTI-CHISEsE "CoNspIRACY.y
The Case of Thomas Baldwin in the U. S.
| Circuit Court-Judge Sawyer's Views.

The Case of Thomas Baldwin in the U. S.
Circuit Court-Judge Sawyer's Views.
The habeas corpus case OF Thomas
Baldwin. one of the residents of Nicolaus
arrested for conspiracy against the Chinese
by driving them from that town, came up
tor hearing before Judges Sawyer and
Sabin. in the United States Circuit Court,
San Francisco, Tuesday. The Courtroom
was filled with an array of legal talent.
Consul Bee aud attaches of the Chinese
Consulate and others interested. A. l..
Hart, appearing for Baldwin, opened the
argument, and was followed by Hall Nc
Allister, special counsel engaged by the
Chinese, and Judge j. w. Armstrong, of
Sacramento, General Hart closing the argu-
ment.
Judge Sawyer stated that, in view of the
importance OF the case, involving, perhaps,
peace or international war, decision
would be rendered next morning.
The Post of last evening saws that Judge
Sawyer yesterday morning delivered his
opinion, which required one-half hour
to read, and after stating that the prisoner
had been arrested on warrant issued by a
United States Commissioner, ON a charge
OF conspiracy to defraud the Chinese of the
town or Nlcolaus Suffer county, of their
rights to reside in that town that the ar
rest was made under the provisions of Sec
ton o5l9 OF the Revised Statutes, the pen
atty upon conviction being fine of not less
than $500 or more than S., 900. or imprison-
ment for not less than six months or more
than SIX years, or both such fine and inn
prisonment, the Court said
OPINION OF JUDGE SAWYER.
F" 1t seems to me that there can be no
doubt that the acts charged are within the
provisions of this section, and if the pro-
visions, so far as they embrace Chinese
aliens subjects of the Emperor of China,
are constitutionally valid, they constitute a
very grave offense against the United States
SO far as the provisions relate to territory
over which the United States has exclusive
legislative power, there can be little doubt
that the act was valid"
The Court then referred to various au-
thorities, particularly the Harris case, and
said that if the decision in that case was
applicable to the facts in the present case,
the prisoner was unlawfully held and must
be discharged; but in this case, the Chinese
aliens did not rely upon the provisions of
the Fourteenth Amendment, except as to
the right to enjoy the privileges of citizens
CT the United States and the equal protec-
ton of their laws. Referring to the Consti-
tuition, the Court read the sections in which
the rights of aliens were set forth, and said
that the treaty-making power had the
right to grant these rights and immunities.
and the Supreme Court had held that
rights given by treaties could be protected
by Congress. 1t seemed to the Court that
the making of the violation Of these treaty
obligations by any combination of citizens
crime, punishable as provided by Sec
ton 55l9, was properly provision for pro-
lection.
INTERNATIONAL COERCION.
"Such combination to violate treaty
rightsis matter not merely of State but
international concern" said the Court,
=" and may well involve the question of
peace or war"
Judge Sawyer then read sections from
the Burlingame treaty to show that the
Chinese were entitled to certain privileges.
immunities, exemptions and rights. !"
among which was the right to choose per-
manent or temporary residence without
moles alton, and to be protected by the
laws of the land, and to enjoy the same
privileges as are guaranteed to citizens of
other countries. Thus" said the Court
= the United States Government has i'm
posed upon itself by these treaties an ex-
press obligation to exert all its powers to
devise means to protect Chinese residents
and secure them these rights
The Chinese residents of Nicolaus had
rights arising under the Constitution, which
were violated by the acts charged against
the prisoner, and which it was competent
for Congress to protect.
RETURNING TO THE HARRIS CASE.
Judge Sawyer asserted that theacts of the
cluzens OF Nlcolaus were clearly distin-
guishable from those of the defendant in the
Tennessee case. but that the validity of the
entire section had not been settled, and the
trouble was that Congress had covered too
much ground, and therefore made the sec
ton ambiguous The Court was not in anv
doubt as to the validity of the section when
applied in the Territories, but was not sat
lsfied regarding its const1tutionalitv in the
States. He dwelt at length upon the an
plcauon OF the Harris and Packet cases as;
decided IL the United States Supreme Court.
and finally concluded that the ground COW
cred by these sections did not come within
the scope of the present case THE specific
question" said he, is one of vast conse-
quence to the entire population of the
United States. and involves the peace and
good order of society on the Pacific. 1t in
wolves the honor of the United States and
that OF peace or war. Thus the acts of all
public meetings throughout the State, look
ing to deprive the Chinese of those rights
secured to them by our treaty with China,
by means popularity known as the boy
colt, if the Act were valid it would make
all those who participated in them subject
to punishment according to the provisions.
II the statute is not valid, there is no way
OF protecting the Chinese in their rights
except by Section $685. The Court. how
ever did not think that that section an
piled in case like the present.
REFERRED To THE SUPREME COURT.
In concluding his remarks, Judge SAWYER
said: The questions now presented are of
too great consequence to be finally decided
by subordinate Court The peace and
good order of the Pacific coast and of the
nation require that these questions should
be promptly presented to and decided nv
the Supreme Court. AS there is doubt in
my mind upon these points, and the an.
thorities as they now stand, | shall for the
purposes OF this case rule against the peti-
toner, and remand him to the custody of
the Marshal. do not desire to be consid
cred as finally determining the question. as
it may be again presented in other cases
before the authoritative decision NAV be
made in the Supreme Court NV associate
Judge Sabin), after much doubt, dissents
from the decision made. Under that cir
cumstance, and the doubts entertained
should an appeal be taken the prisoner will
be allowed TO go at large on his own ecog
nizance until the decision on appeal. If the
case be appealed, and is prosecuted to an
early hearing, it is suggested that the Gov
eminent do not prosecute any cases arising
or upon such as have already arisen. until
the decision of the Court
Let the writ be dismissed and the pris-
oner remanded to the custody of the Mar
shall
A Farmers Meeting.
the Pacific Rural Prose- savs tba+ n ,,,oot