Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-10-16
GOODBYE JOHN.
The Exclusion Act Stands
the Test.
JUDGE SAWYER'S DECISION.
The Chinese in Port Dare Not Land.
Every Gate Closed Against
the MongOlians.
Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD

Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD
SAN Francisco, October ia decis.
ion was rendered by Judge Sawyer in
the United States Circuit Court to-day
upon the two test cases under the recent
Chinese exclusion act. The Court al
firms the constitutionality OF the act and
holds that all Chinese now in the harbor,
as well as those on the way here from
China, must be sent back to their own
country.
Judge Sawyer announced his decision
verbally, stating that he would be able
to produce corrected copy of the deci-
sion this afternoon.
Notice was given by the attorneys that
the cases would be appealed to the United
States Supreme Court. Judge Sawyer
allowed ten days for preparing appeal
papers.
The decision was read by Judge Saw
yer this afternoon and is very lengthy.
THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND CHINESE AF.
FECTED.
It is estimated that this decision will
effect about thirty-three thousand
Chinese, as there are over thirty thou
sand return certificates still outstanding,
and it is believed there are now about
5000 in their native country who he'd
lived here before the Restriction act was
passed, and who before the passage of
the Exclusion bill would be entitled to
re-enter this country under the claim of
being prior residents. About six hun.
dred Chinese have arrived in this port
since the approval of the Exclusion act,
and about seven hundred others are now
on the way from China.
The court declares that the language
of the act is clear and exact and capable
OF bearing but one construction. 1t be-
gins to operate from the moment it was
approved by the President, and though
the petitioners in these cases were upon
the high seas at the time the act was ap.
proved, it nevertheless acts upon them.
RETURN TICKET NOT A CONTRACT.
The court further declares that there is
no specific contract between the United
States Government and individual
Chinese laborers, by which the latter
should be entitled to return to this
country after once departing from it. A
return certificate is not a contract,
but only an instrument of evil
dence to establish the identity
of party already entitled to
certain privileges under contract be-
tween the United States and Chinese
governments, as between the two
governments. Treaties like other laws
confer rights and privileges as long as
they are in force, and the Court holds
that the right of Congress to legislate in
such manner as to control and repeal the
stipulation of treaties has been clearly
recognized. AS an act of Congress upon
q subject within its legislative power is
as binding upon the Courts as the treaty
on the same subject, both are binding,
except when the latter one conflicts or
interferes with the former.
NOT AN Ex POST FAcTo LAW.
Upon the other point urged by the
counsel for the Chinese that the Ex-
clusion Act is unconstitutional on account
of its being an ca post facto law, the court
states: We do not find any element OF an
e1 post facto law in the act now in ques-
ton. There is nothing in the nature OF
an ofense in Chinaman's departing
from the country, and bis departure is
not made an offense. And there is moth
ing in the nature of a punishment or OF a
penalty imposed for the act OF having de-
parted from the country, in providing in
the interest of the people of the United
States under change of public policy
that he shall not return. There is
simply repeal by Congress of a prior
law found in the stipulations of treaty