Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1889-03-28
BEFoRE Ole sUrREME couRT.
An Int resting Question About Chinese
ImmigratIon-Distlng Counsel.

An INTERESTING Question About Chinese
ImmigratIon-Dis Counsel.
WASHINGTON, March 27-Ghers being
no quorum present when the Supreme
Court met to. day, an adjournment was tax
en- until tomorrow. Should quorum
be in attendance then the Court will i'm
mediately proceed to the hearing Of argu-
ments in the case of Chae Chsen Ping, ap-
pellsut. vs. the United States. This case
involves the constitutionality OF The Scott
Exclusion Act, approved by the President
October 1, 1858. The facts IN the case az
set forth in the statement of counsel for
appsllant upon the motion TO advance the
case for argument, are as follows:
The appellant is a Chinese labOrer ard a
subject Of Chins, and departed from the
United States for China on June ., 1887.
Before doing so he applied to and obtained
from the Collector Of the Port OF San Fran
cisco the return certificate required by sec
tio7 four of the Chinese restriction act OF
Nav 6. 1882 as amended July D, 1854. lie
returned 20 the United States on October
7. 1883. and presented the certificate TO the
Collector and claimed the right
70 land Hereunder, but permission
was refused by the Collector
on the ground that under the provisions OF
the Act commonly known as ths Scott
Exclusion Act of o O;tober l, 1888, the csr-
tidcate presented by appellant had bsen
declared void and of no effect. He sued out
a writ Of habess corpus in the u. 5. Cir
emit Court. and after a hearing the Court
ordered appellant remanded to the custody
which he had been taken. This custody
was the captain Of the ship which had
brought him back to the United States.
From that judgment Of remand he has
appealed to this court.
Counsel for appellant contend that the
question involved in this case Is whether
that norton of the act Of October l, lSSS,
declaring the LabOrers Certificate therefore
issued void and of no effect is valid and
constitutional as will he perceived they cay
this proposition involves questions OF totn
National snd International importonce
Counsel further contend that the Labor
ers who departed from the United States
vyitb these return certificates we're guaran-
teed by the treaty between tho United
states and China of November II, lsoO,
and the act of May g, 1882, the right to 60
and come and without warning
or notice this treaty is virtually
obro0sted and vested rights acquired
hereunder are entirely swept away. The
fs,th and honor of this government they
sov ia so involved in the case now before
tbs Court. These certificates contain up
on their face a promise on the part OF the
government that the holders thereof shall
mon nresentation of the Ger, ,ihcates be en-
Mid 10 return to and re-enter the United
Stotes II the act ID unconstitutional,
counsel say It is necessary that speedy de-
terninsti9n of this case should be had so
tbat these laborers may return and avail
themselves of the rights and privileges
gnsranteed to them by the treaty act OF
1Ss5 and if the act is vslid it, is just SIS
necessary that it should be 80 determined
i,nmadiately, so that those who have &C
onired property interests here may take
some means of protecting those interests.
Ex-Governor Hoadley, OF Ohio, and
lanes c. Carter, Of New York, will repre-
ssnt the case tor appellant before the
C,nrf and Solicitor. General jerks will
snnear for the government. Messrs. j. +.
swift recently confirmed as Minister to
Tsnan. Attorney Central johnson, OF
CaIifornis, and 5. NJ. White, OF California,
gill he present TO look after the interests
-, ctste Of California in the case.