The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-03-20


| from the volumes of American reports,
state and federal, in none Of which it is be-
| ieved, has it ever been successfully maln-
| tanned that the fact that one of the parties
| to the obligation or promise was sovereign
state, precluded the other from asserting
| his just rights as party to contract bind
ing the sovereign. The only difference
between the sovereign and the Individual
is that the former usually adopts the form
of statute or ordinance as evidence OF con-
sent; and in the nature of the evidence,
therefore, necessary to establish the con-
tractual relation.
THH CERTIFICATES LEGAL BFFBCT.
1.-THE legal effect of the certificate is de-
fined to be to entitle This is the word
used-'to eutitle the Chinese laborer to
whom the same is issued to return to and
RENTER the United States upon producing
and delivering the same to the collector of
customs at the district at which such
Chinese laborer shall seek to RENTER
What language could the Congress Oh
United States seeking to vest in Chinese
laborers the right of re-entry, have used
better adapted to the end than the senten-
ces lust quoted The word 'entitle' was
not loosely or idly adopted. 1t is word of
vesting description, of acquired condi-
lions or rights. He who is entitled can
not be Invested, except by the process of
eminent domain or during state OF war"
INCAPABLE OF REVOCATION.
In discussing the want of power in Con
gress and annul the rights of Chae ChaW
Ping council said at the outset:
whether treated as a correct executed
or vested right, the right the title of
Chae ChaW Ping, the privilege or favor
or franchise or liberty, whatever it may be
called, to which he became entitled by
force of the treaty, the statues, his de
parture the certificate, his re-entry and
surrender of the certificates, is incapable
of revocation by any act of the United
States during the time of peace with China.
The power of the United States to i'm
pair the obligation of contract is not eX-
pressly denied in the constitution.
ut is unnecessary that it should be for
the constitution is a grant of enumerated
powers, only including those incidental or
implied when necessary to the exercise of
granted powers.
1--WE submit that it is altogether too late
in the day for Congress under the grant of
the limited power contained in the federal
constitution to resort to the disused
methods of cancelling personal privileges
conceded by mOnarchs.
CONGRESS IS NOT KING.
Congress is not the king, and does not
grant personal privileges, although 1T may
pfONlut lOE granting priv W ptISOuS
so that this method of cancelling which the
crown grants, to which the kings of Eng
land once resorted, but have so long dis !
used, that it has ceased to be one OF their |
prerogatives, is wholly inapplicable to q
government of law and right" !
Counsel then detailed at great length the |
history and discussions OF the alien and |
sedition acts in the administration of the |
elder Adams.
at must, they say, ''be remembered that !
the alien law did not authorize the Presi- |
dent to order the removal of all aliens but |
of two classes only, namely, those he might |
Judge dangerous to the peace and safety of |
the United States, or shall have reasonable |
grounds to suspect are concerned in any |
reasonable or secret Vaccinations against |
the government.
An ACT OF WAR.
''The order of the President, in the exc
cution of this act therefore, being directed |
against dangerous or hostile aliens only |
was itself an act of war or quasi war.
''If the cOnstitutionality of the alien act |
could only be maintained as attempted in |
Massachusetts and Virginia, by reference |
to the war powers of the government, then |
it is clear that the exclusion act, being |
passed and intended to operate during |
peace with China, must find some support |
elsewhere than in the history of the alien |
act of 1879.
1.-THE fact that statesmen and jurists of |
the Federal party living so soon after the
formation of the constitution, defended the
measure only by reference to war powers
is conveniently persuasive to the conclu-
sion that the exclusion act is, in its appli-
cation to outstanding certificates, uncon- |
stitutional and should be SO declared by |
this court"
THE MoSGoLIAN's RESIDENCE.
%
Ping counsel says:
"Chae Chan Ping is Chinese laborer, q |
subject of the Emperor of China, not a citi-
zen of the United States of America. |
he is person and as such, |
within the protection of the fifth amend
ment to the Constitution of the United |
States:
=" No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of !
law; and the fourteenth amendment to the
Constitution of the United States:
'NOr shall any state deprive any person |
Of life, liberty or property without due pro-
cess of law.
"Chae Chan Ping is resident of the
state of California. His domicile is there.
to the life, liberty and property of an alien
resident of the United States as person
and referred to in the fifth
and fourteenth amendments of the Federal
Constitution belonged to Chae Chan Ping
when the steamer Belgic entered the
harbor of San Francisco on the 18th day of
October, 1888, and he once more resumed
or attempted to resume-his actual resi-
dence in that city.
HAD REMAINED A RESIDENT.
SIN legal contemplation he had remained
a resident of San Francisco, California,
during his temporary absence, viz: from the
ID day of June, 1887, to the 9TH day of
October, 1888. In point of fact he resumed
as far as he could-his residence, changing
it from a residence de iure to one de facto,
the moment the steamer Belgic entered the
port of San Francisco and came within the
Jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States; reaching soil upon which their writ
Of habeas corpus might lawfully be served
and their judgments of deliverance exc
cuted
1--WE do not claim that because Chae
Chan Ping had already reached California
soil when the collector refused to permit
him to land he thereby acquired greater or
other rights than those of other certificate
holders, who, like him, had left the United
States with the intention of returning.
IT IS BANIsHMENT.
"Such exclusion is in effect Punishment,
or exile, in the case of every Chinese laborer
legally resident in the United States al
though at the time of the passage of the
act he may be temporarily absent even on a
visit to his native country, for it depriVes
the certificate holder of his domicile, which
is nothing but expulsion under another
name.n
TUF POLICE POWER