The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-01-16
HqS OF CHINESE.
! protection for Violators of
the Exclusion Act.
g cELEsTlALS REMANDED.
..-t Questions for the United
n.s.s supreme court-zFarbor
Line Decision Ready.

..rsnt question which win probably
- srnrerue court OF the United States for
- .srne I'D before Judge Hanford in the
"A court Yesterday on the bearing of
- of Toy Sing, Toy Ton and Toy
80 three Cinnamon arrested for yio-
= sbs chinese exclusion act. They had a
~ = The early part of December before
=; safes Commissioner Swan at Port Town
"a having found that they were Chinese
- rsborn the law denied admission to this
-. swan issued writ OF deportation, and
zrk they were to be taken back to their ma
- Turner and Ellsworth, attorneys for
q. IN. had them brought before Judge Han
s.,s,srday on a writ of habeas corpus, and
q a have the case reviewed on the grounds
n sssr we're unlawfully restrained. They
~ mat the commissioner had no right TO
~ them: that the commitment was insult
a and The case should be heard by a higher
...l..,pf United States Attorney Sullivan con-
~ thaf these men had been tried by court
-rnefeut satisfaction and had been ordered
vtsd to China and there was no authority
s.suiriur further into the case; that the mat
- setfled and could not be reviewed, for
rrifeS states commissioners writ OF depor-
3 h binding.
'sdss T3anford said: "This legislation 10 ex-
80 Chinese Is construed in two ways. Some
- hare held that violation of this law is
-, bat do not see how the law could be
Lrtrned to punish Chinese for coming here,
ksisa crime for officers OF vessels to bring
= Rem. There are several cases where Gus
:. officers refused Cinnamon the right TO
he writ of habeas corpus was issued and
- INQUIRED into the facts 10 ascertain
kxher they were Chinese laborers or mer-
40 and other privileged classes. But in
- cases the courts were not reviewing the
- a Judiciary officers. The law requires a
~ inquiry into these cases, and under the
N lSi q commissioner Is clothed with as
- power in this respect MS the supreme
/ 5je oct OF 1858 provides for an appeal to the
k6iti or circuit court, but the Scott law,
- { lew days later, excludes all Chinese la
- and oyerridcs all treaties. Under this
SIS case cannot be reviewed on @ writ of
kbs corpus, and think III order to uphold
khE the courts have got to treat it in most
pecu ss the fugitive slave law, and Chinese
- Be treated as outside of the protection OF
eoastitution. Courts have to take that rad
Il new OF this act, and in this case the pris-
"a viii have 10 be remanded to the custody
We marshal.
|sk Is q constitutional question whether a
missioner can be empowered to render final
&tment upon these cases. The supreme court
Naet passed upon some OF these questions
hdxe Hanford then suggested to counsel for
kptitioners that II they desired TO take the
= up to the supreme court of the United
hsk they might try a writ of certiorari to
npel the records OF the commissioner to be
|mght into court for the purpose OF getting at
ktscts In the case.
|As counsel for the Chinese prisoners claim
Etiheir clients do not come within the mean
not the exclusion act, because they formerly
Edtd IN this country, and one OF them is a
lhese merchant OF san Francisco. These facts
n viii seek 70 establish If the action of the
can be reversed. They will try
seaee,s OF writ of certiorari, and the case
II Be heard on January 81