Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-05-14
And Once They Go They AIust STAY, So
Says tho Highest Court

W WASHINGTON, May lSth.-The suprerne Cou,.
TODAY affirmed the validity OF the law excl,,d
alss,. lns Sniiese laboreTS, known the scott Ex-
cIuslon Act by rendering its opinion in me cssa
OF Cnae Ghang Ping, appellant vs. the Colleetor
OF fort OF San Francisco. This was q ~nit
o,ouSht 70 test the eonsttutionaliry of the Scott
Chinese Exclusion Act. shortly after the SCOT,
Exclusion Act went into effeet Chae' C,,sn..
ring returned TO the United states from, china
and enGeayored to secure entrance AZ Ihe noTt
OF san francisco. he lett this con,,I,1, s,,,,e,,
with certificate emitting him ~ retS, =, ~,
the certlficate was declared invalid bv me sentr
Act me collector refused him admittsree
rlu r sute ~ was tnen brought in the United States
court tor the District OF California TO tesr the
consttutiouality of the Scott ct in aeconIancs.
win tne provisions of which the Collector
se.eu; me California Court upheld the con-
sStuNohaAfy OF the Act, and from this decision
the case comes here on appeal. This CONT M
frnS that Judgment IL hoi5sthat Copc rsSs has
tne powerto abrogate treaty and in suppoYt
OF that view cites the authorities az Covrt ,,,,
the subject, holding that the propriety of s,,ch
action Is not matter Tor judicial cornjzsnee
Dut that II Is matter for the politicsl aepart.
eiude aliens from the country whose presence Is
deemed lnlmicai to our interests
IN considering the case Justice Field ira
Veiseo at considerable length the general char
acter OF the treaties between the two countries
and the legislation of Congress 10 carry rhem
INTO erect The opinion proceeds as follows
as Chlnee crew in numbers esch wear the
people OF the Pacific coast saw or believed thev
saw, in the facility OF Immigration and in the
crowded millions of China, where the popula-
ton presses upon means of subsistence. great
I,,. o,ser siiat at no distant day that portion of
our country would be overrun by them, unless
prompt action was taken to restrict lmmigra-
tlon. The people there aeeordnsly pefitioned
earnestly for protective legislation
here is reheaISed the treaty and Legislative
hlSinry on the Chinese question, ending with
the scott Act. AS TO the objection that the Act
IS IN conflict with the treaties the opinion saws.
IL must be conceded that the Act of lS,S is In
contravention of the express stipulation of ths
treaty OF 1865 and of the supplemental treaty of
1851, but II IS not on that account invalid or to
s os re IA lts enforcement Treaties were
OF no greater legal obligation than an Act OF
congress By tie Constitution the laws made
IN pursuance thereof aud the treaties made nm
yer tne authorlty OF the United States are both
declared to be the supreme law of the land. ard
no paramount authority il given 10 one 0ver the
other. Inc last expression of the sovereign will
must control
1t Will not be presumed that the legislative do
partment OF the Government will lightly mass
laws which are in conflict with treaties of q
country, but that circumstances may arise
wnieh would not only justify the Government
IN dlscharglng their stipulations but on the de-
mand OF the interest of the country that it
should do SO there can be no question he
question whether our Government is justified in
ulsreSarulng It's engagements with another ma
Courts " VAC
In continuing the opinion he discusses an
otner branch of the subject as follows. There
Delng nothing in the Treaty between China and
the United States to impair the validity of the
ACT OF Congress of October ], 1855 was it on any
other ground beyond the competency of Con-
gress to PASS it? If so it must be because il was
NOT within the power of Congress to prohibit
Chlnese iaborers who had at some time departed
rom the nlted states or should subsequently
depart, from returning TO the United states.
Ihose laborers are not citizens of the United
states they are aliens.
Ihe power OF the Government to exclude
foreigners from the country wherever in its
Judgment the public interests require such ex-
eiuslon, mas been asserted in repeated instances,
and never denied by the executive or legisIa,
tive department.
In conclusion the opinion says The power
of tne excursion OF foreigners being an incident
OF sovereignty. and belonging 10 the Govern
ment OF the United States 4 part of those SOW
erelgu powers delegated by the Constitution.
ana right TO its exercise at any time when in
the Judgment .of the Government and war is
existing, the same necessity in less pressing
degree may arise when war dnes not exist, aud
the same au' hority which adjudges the neces-
slty IN one case must determine il in another