The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-03-30
PIGTAILS In A POKE.
Able Arguments in the Chae
Chan Ping Case.
NO RIGHTS OF CONTRACT EXIST.
The Pacific Coast People Defended From the
Charges of BigOtry and Persecution
People in Glass Houses, Etc.
special to THE HERALD,-Examiner Dispatch

WASHINGTON, March 29.-The Cha
= Chang Ping case was argued yesterday be
n fore the supreme court. For the first tim
= since the death of Judge Mathews, thu
supreme court on assembling this morning
1 had quorum present and was able to pro
7 coed to business. Six justices constitute
majority and all were present this morn
ing save Judge Blatchford The first thing
done was to admit to the supreme court ban
six young lawyers from various states
among whom was Stephen NJ. White, Of
J Los Angeles, who was admitted on motion
: of Mr. John F. Swift The case that had
been in course of argument the day before
the death of the judge was put over til
Monday owing to the circumstances that 1
t brother of Judge Matthews was actually
making his argument when the court ad
jOurned and was still absent in connection
, with the funeral.
This order brought the Chinese case OF
Chae Chang Ping to the front as the first on
the calendar. The court was at first dis
posed to rule limiting speeches to two
hours time and two counsel on a side, but
afterwards relaxed the rule and all the
four who had appeared for the United
States, viz. Solicitor General jerks for the
government, and Messrs. Johnson, White
and Swift for the state of California were
allowed to speak. Among the crowd of
spectators were L. B. Misner, of Benicia,
Mr.. Osborne, of Los Angeles, Mrs. Stephen
NJ. White, Senators Stewart, Dolph and
Mitchell, and congressman Vandever and
McKenna.
GOVERNOR HOADLEY OPENED THE CASH
for the appellant with a finely phrased ar.
gument, which was, however, mainly a re
4, l. L. l.
original brief AttOrney-General Johnson,
of California, followed IL support of the
contention of the United State. He took
UP the argument of the other side regard
ing the contract implied in the return GER
tificate, and argued that they had con-
founded rights of imperfect obligation with
inchOate rights or mere privilege with
vested rights. There is a wide distinction,
he argued, between perfect vested rights OF
property and mere privileges or matters of
favor, inducements to hope and eXpecta-
| ton, sometimes called contracts of imper-
| feet obligations. The identifying certifi-
cate. he continued, which gives to Chae
! Chang Ping the so-called right to return is
not only not contract, but cannot become
an irrepealable contract under our system
of government, but Congress has the ex-
elusive power to regulate commerce with
! foreign nations, which includes the whole
! subject of immigration, and that Congress
cannot abrOgate or take away from a sue
| ceeding Congress the power confded by
| the constitution.
Whenever we enter the DOMAIN OF the
| public policy OF the country, argued Mr.
Johnson, we enter wider territory than
the restricted one of contracts, and it is
apparent that Congress, being charged with
a duty and trust, cannot dlVest Itself by
contract OF the power OF determining when
1t IS improper that certain class OF aleu-
! l.
| people shall come hlther. Moreover, the
nation IS incapable OF comforting vested
right OF extra terr1torlallty upon these
aliens who have voluntarily left the coun-
try, for that would be to trans
Ter, protanto, what IS lnahenable to
| a foreign power. That IS all that can be
claimed for such concessions is that they
are IN the nature OF revokablc license. II
the appellant holds no vested right but a
mere reYokable privilege, due process Ct
law IS lnappilcable to him, and the remain
der OF the appellants argument as to an
ex post facto law, and the bill attalnder
Tails.
LTEr-TEs ,ST-GoyERNoR WHITE SAID.
IN opening, that he believed the appellant
had made concessions fatal to his case. He
SAID he would assume as conceded: II
That Congress had power at any time to
and SNThat PING had no rigbt IN enforce
any treaty stipulation between himself and
the government OF the United States.
The question then to be dealt with IS, did
this Chlnaman acquire any rights under
any law OF Congress OF which the act OF
1888 unlawtuily sought to deprive him. M: /
Wmte argued that the certlhcate reiled |
upon by the other side was simply method
OF Identifying adopted by Congress to pre- /
vent the perpetrau0n OF frauds by alleged |
Chlnese laDorers. Congress had never CON
Ierred any rights IN the nature OF property: |
On the contrary, each treaty and each act
was more restrictive than us predecessor;
Nhen II was granted That Congress could !
at one time and by one act keep out all |
foreigners, why could II not assert It's |
perogauVe gradually! Inc United States |
merely sald TO TINS man go nome, II you so |
desire You may come Dack again II the |
government does not see Mt to change It's |
poncy regarding the matter
AS TO the argument tnat que process CT
law was DENIED Ping or that ms hDerty was
!eopardlzed, Mr.. w hlte INSISTED that MOTH
ing mad been done TO infringe on the constl-
uutloh. Inns Chlnaihah Is an amen ne may