The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-03-27
THEY LOOK TO TIKI POWER.

"They look merely TO the power, and there
is not the slightest doubt that the allen
and sedition acts were strictly within the
power of Congress, and so this court must
have held had it ever been called upon to
pass upon the question.
POWER OVER ALIENS.
SIN fact, the power of Congress to deal
with aliens substantially as it may consider
the public good demands, to expel them
from the country, with or without notice,
or to forbid their leaving if it shall seem
best, or to require them to withdraw to
some specified part of the country and
there remain under surveillance, or to i'm
prison them upon refusal to obey, as was
done in that case, was decided and upheld
by Judge Washington in Lockington's case,
Iockington VS.. Smith) and is beyond
question the law of the land, and the power
to do so is an essential attribute to the com
plete sovereignty of the nation. True,
Lockington's case arose in time of war, and
he was held as an alien enemy, but the
power of peace and war and all other
matters touching our relations with foreign
nations, as well as matters OF commerce
between our country and others under
which immigration IS included, are
exclusively within the province and control
of Congress, and it is the sole judge of all
exigencies and necessities of public
nature arising under them. Story on the
Constitution, sections 1861, 1865, 1872"
In both briefs filed in behalf of respond
ent, but notably in that of Messrs. Hoadly
and Carter, an effort is made to show that
the alien and sedition acts were unconstltu-
tional But it will be observed that the
authority of the sovereign power, wherever
it may rest, to expel aliens from the coun-
try is not questioned. The dispute over
the alien and sedition acts was as to where
the powers to eXpel them was vested,
whether in Congress or the states.
REVIVAL OF STATE RIGHTS.
'sThis is a revival of the old contest of
state rights with the Virginia resolution of
1898 urged as a conclusion of the question"
continued counsel mo adjudication of
this court or any court is cited showing the
uncOnstitutiOnality of the acts, and 1t is to
be presumed that none can be found against
the Virginia resolution.
"The learned counsel admits the Massa-
chusetts and New Hampshire resolutions,
taking the opposite view, and also mino'-
ity report of the Virginia legislature to the
same effect. See also Judge Cooley's views,
note to section 1894, Story on the ConStitU-
ton. fourth edition.
"The Virginia politicians of that day did
beyond doubt deny the right of Congress
to expel aliens claiming that power for the
states. but they at the same time and long
dl ltE COutluucu " ulSpulC J4lt dubuOIIIN "
do large number of acts of sovereignty,
with which objectionable exercise of power
this court has agreed, and the questions are
settled against the state rights theory.
But if the alien and sedition acts were
void, this case is not affected. The queS-
ton is Has Congress the power to keep out
an alien whose presence is deemed undeSir-
able! VIII counsel claim, in the present
condition Of the American nation andin the
ESrn+ of re of tho laCT DUartpp Of n
fury, that aliens ObjectiOnal to the United
States at large, and believed to be danger
Gus to the interests of the entire country,
can be protected and domiciled in any par
ticular state by virtue of state laws, in
defiance of the will of the nation expressed
through Congress? If so, we have mac e
but little progress in consolidating the
American people into a nation one and in
divisible.
LAW OF NATURE AND NATIONS.
''Under the law of nature and nations the
right OF a man or body of men to leave one
country and pass into another for any pur-
pose, that other being free and sovereign,
must in the end come to be right repre-
scented by force alone, and end in a question
of the strongest arm and best guns.
''Trne. the so-called right of eXpatriation
embodiedin the Burlingame treaty, has been
adopted in the revised statutes of the United
States, and as to all not exempted from 1t
by later legislation, must bind this court in
proper case.
but by the acts of 1882 and 1884. all Chi
nese labOrers but a very limited class were
excluded from the rule, which exclusion
this act of October II, 1885, extended to
Chae Chan Ping, the appellant who is
thrown back upon the general law of
nature and nations and has no right to
come to this country, except by consent OF
Congress. which he has not obtained, or by
invincible force and arms which he does
not seem to have.
AMERICA FOR AMERICANS.
"The Constitution and laws of the United
States were adopted for the benefit of the
people of the United States. Resident
aliens have only such absolute rights as the
public law of nations secures to them,
which rights are of imperfect obligation.
Those who have been resident aliens have
no rights at all, but have what we choose to
accord to them.
THE QUESTION IN THE CASE.
"Theuuestlons uponwnich this cause must
turn have been over and over again passed
upon and decided by this court, adversely
to appellants contentious. 1t seems almost
superhuous to cite them. They are arrayed
in incontestible force in support of the
reasoning of Judge Sawyer before whom
the case was heard in California. 1t is
enough to mention the last one,
that of Whitney VS.. Robertson,
l24 U. S., 191. which is deterrainBtive
of the case. Messrs. HOadley and Carter,
in abiding to Cheu Hong VS.. U. s. 112, U.
S. $50, use this language: We do not
deny the plenary power of Congress over
this treaty and over its own legislation
so as to forbid the future immigration of
Chinese laborers, and the future issue OF
certificates such as described in the acts of
1882 and 1884, Again, on page Is, it is
said: AS 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. Neither do we dispute the
power of Congress to adopt the system
which the Chinese themselves have aban-
doned, of excluding intercourse with for
eigners. But appellant claims that in his
case rights have become vested under the
treaty which cannot now be denied him.
We do not claim that Chae Chan Ping has
the right to enforce its (the treaty's) stipu-
latiOns or to complain of their breach.
Our contention is that being law of the
United States he took under it rights OF
which he cannot be deprived by subsequent
legislation This contention has been so
fully answered by the solicitor general in
his able brief filed however, that it is I'M
necessary to deal with the matter in de-
tail
A few words upon the subject may not he
out of place, in view of the able argument
lately filed by the appellee. 1t might be
suggested at the outset that this contract,
if such it be, has no greater force than the
faith pledged by the United States to pre-
emption settler who entered upon surveyed
public land intending to improve and make
his home there, and whose rights and i'm
OrOVemantS the very roof over his head no