The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-03-20
CHAE CHAN PING.
His Case is Presented in the
United States Supreme Court.
PING ALL SAME MEXICAN MAN.
1t is a Question Whether Chinese LabOrer
Having Been Invited to Return to
America, May be Excluded.

filed yesterday with the clerk of the SUI
preme court the brief prepared by himself
and James C. Carter in behalf Of Chae Chan
Ping in the case to test the validity of the
Chinese exclusion act.
He begins by reciting Pings arrival in
San Francisco in 1875, his departure with a
return certificate June ., 1887, and his sail
ing from Hong Kong on his return to Cali
fornia in the steamer Belgic on September
Z, 1888, and his arrival October Z, six days
after the approval of the exclusion act.
Thin follows the narrative of the proceed
ings under the habeas corpus case, and the
decision of the circuit court that Ping was
not entitled to enter the United States
and was not unlawfully restrained of his
liberty.
TIE COURT ERRED.
1.-THE court says the counsel, ''erred in
each and all of its conclusions of law, and
in its judgment remanding appellant to the
custody of the master of the steamship
whence he had been taken.
TIE counsel for Ping divide their argyll
ment into six parts The first relates to
the acts of Congress and treaty with China;
the second, to the rights OF Chae Chan
Ping: the third, to the want of power to
annul appellants rights; the fourth, to the
residence of Chae Chan Ping; the fifth, to
the proposition that the expulsion of
Chinese laborers is not the exercise of
police power; the sixth, to the proposition
that the appellants expulsion is an er post
feot1attainder,
THB EXCLUSION ACT.
'Under the first head" says counsel,
''the Chinese exclusion act is cited and also
the earlier exclusion acts and treaties.
Especial stress is laid on the guarantee of
our government that the certificates
authorized by the acts of 1882 and 1884, en-
titled the holder to re-enter the United
States.
THE act of 1884. for instance, alludes to
the issue of the certificate as being, In
order to furnish them with the proper evi-
dence of their right to go from and come to
the United States, as provided by the said
act and treaty between the United States
and China
ENTITLED TO A Certificate.
Another part of the same section says
that every such Chinese laborer showed de-
parting from the United States shall be en-
titled TO and shall receive free of any
charge or cost, upon application therefor,
fSOm the collector or his deputy in the name
ofsaid collector and attested by said col
lector's seal of office at the time such list is
taking, a certificate sighed by the collector
or his deputy"
NOT LEGALLY DEPRIVED.
Rlder the second head it is proposed to
shtW that Chae Chan Pin had rights, of
which he could not be legally deprived by
the exclusion legislation.
Upon this point counsel say:
LAS to the treaty with China we do not
deny the plenary power of Congress, at
will, to abrogate each and every one of its
provisions.
THB POWER NOT DISPUTED.
Neither do we dispute the power of Con
gress to adopt the system which the Chinese
themselves have abandoned of excluding
intercourse with foreigners. Our PROPOSE
ton is that under the Constitution and laws
of the United States, Chae Chan Ping
was and is entitled to be discharged upon
the writ of habeas corpus which was issued
for his benefit by the circuit court of the
United States at San Francisco.
1.-The third section Of the exclusion act
provides, That all the duties prescribed
liabilities, and fOrfeitures, imposed and
powers conferred by the twelfth section of
the act of 1884 are, extended and made APP
plicable' to the provision of the exclusion
act itself
WAS HE CNLAWPULLY HHRBt
Assuming for the present that one of the
methods prescribed by this twelfth section
of ascertaining whether a Chinese laborer
is 'one not lawfully entitled to be or to re-
main in the United States the writ of
habeas corpus is resorted to.
''In this case we proceed to inquire
whether, upon the hearing thus had, Chae
Chan Ping was unlawfully within the
United States when the steamer Belgic
reached San Francisco.
6The treaty between the United States
anI China ratified in 1881, is not claimed to
have conferred any more substantial right
upon appellant than he would have derived
from a statute of the United States contain
ing the same language. The treaty was
doubtless a contract between the United
States and China While it remained bind
ing, as such. upon both these high contract
ing parties, it was also a law of the United
States.
CAN NOT BE DEPRIVED.
ssWedo not claim that Chae Chan Ping has
the right to enforce its stipulations or to
complain of their breach. Our contention
Is that, being a law of the United States, he
took under its rights, of which he cannot be
deprived by subsequent legislation.
@Our contention is, first that by placing
the invitation of the United States and the
written promise of its officer, authorized by
the statutes and shown by the certificate IS
sued in pursuance of law, The appellant en-
tered into contract relations with the
United States, and they with him, whereby
they undertook and agreed, in consideration
of his leaving the country in the faith and
confidence of their assurance Of his right to
return that he should be entitled to re-
turn: and secondly, that even if the obliga
ton be not contractual, nevertheless II
vested in him an executed franchise or
right to return, of which he cannot be de
prived by any legislation which Congress
is made competent by the Constitutional
adopt during peace with China"
Discussing the nature Of the contract the
COUNSEL says:
TGCertainly the departure of Chae Chm
Ping from the United States was the cause
of the contract It is quite true that he
might have received the certificate and then
left the ship at the mono Mt of sailing, but
in this case provision is made by the fourth
section of the acts of 1882 and 1884 for its
cancellation.
ONLY DEPARTING GUESTS.
''The certificate was issuable only to de-
parting Monaghan. 1t was made the right
of such Chinese laborer to receive it; his
departure therefore, caused it, because its !
consideration, the sacrifice involved in his !
departure, the detriment suffered by him,
induced the issue of the certificate.
e tThe invitation Of the United States is |
practically, to read from the statute, thus:
If YOU depart, we guarantee that you shall
be entitled to return and, as evidence OF
your right to return, we direct our collector
Of customs at the port of your departure to
issue certificate which shall so identify
you as to prevent any other Chinese laborer
from making use of it for the purpo sc OF en-
tering the country, and shall insure you the
exercise of the right thus guaranteed, and