Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-02-15
THE CHINESE CASE.

he supreme Court of the United States
has decided that Chinaman seeking to
enter the United States without a certifi-
cate, as required by the Act of 1882, and
refused such admission by the Collector OF
the port where he seeks to land, is entitled
to sue out writ of habeas corpus that
having done so, the United States District
Court has jurisdiction of the case, and on
the hearing of the writ, may order the APP
plicant to be admitted, Notwithstanding he
cannot produce the certificate required
that is, of course if proof is made to the
satisfaction of the Court that he was a
resident of the United States prior to the
passage of the Restriction Act Of 1882
The Court holds that when the Chinaman
is refused admission, and kept upon the
vessel on which he arrives, he is in GUS
tody by color of authority, and hence is
entitled to have the CLAIM of right to hold
him inquired into. Under the Restriction
Act of 1882 he was entitled to enter on
producing the certificate required Under
the amendment to that Act, made in 1884,
such certificate was made the only evil
dence to establish his right to re-entry.''
The Chinaman referred to left the United
States after the passage of the Act of 1882
and before the passage of the amendatory
Act Of 1884. The Supreme Court consid-
cred the case under the Act of 1882.
But Justices Harlan, Field and Lamar
dissent, and hold that even under the Act
Of 1882 the Chinaman could not enter
without producing the certificate, and
that if he had one originally, and
lost it, that is his misfortune
This is, as the people of Cali
fornia have understood the letter
and the spirit of the Restriction Act of
1882. The amendment of 1884 was simply
emphasis, and aflirmatively declared the
intent of the original decree of Congress.
Under the decision, any Chinaman who is
refused admission can be landed on writ
of habeas corpus, and before his case can
be heard-because of the multiplicity Of
such cases-he can post himself sufficiently
TO prove by his own oath and that of 9th
ers the necessary prior residence The
Courts, unable to unearth the perjury, are
helpless, and so it comes about that the
law makes hole through the Restriction
Act by which Chinese immigration, in vi
olation Of the intention of Congress, may
continue.
The Supreme Court having interpreted
the law as it is it must be accepted as final,
unpleasant as it is to California. The ne
ceSsity is emphasized, however, for such
treaty amendment and such explicit legis-
lation as is possible to meet the objections
interposed by the decision. If one is de-
priyed of his liberty who stands outside
and clamors for the gates to open, and the
writ of habeas corpus may issue for him, it
Is difficult to see how any legislation can be
framed that will successfully cross that
right. Yet it may be possible to define
the testimony admissible on the hear
ing OF the writ SO as to carry out the
intent of the Act of 1884. Unquestion-
ably, howev r, the means of avoiding the
obstacles raised by the decision will be
very difficult to attain, short of new
treaty with China and one with the Brit
ish Government regarding exclusion OF
Chinese starting from its ports