The morning call., 1892-04-07
TWO YEARS MORE.

The Judiciary Committee Reports That
the Exclusion Act Expires in 1894.
Tie report to which Senator Mitchell re-
feTTed was in response TO a Senate reso!u-
tion passed on the last day Of the last
session OF the Senate as follows:
ResolUed. That the Committee on the judiciary
be instructed 10 Inquire as TO the date when,
under existing legislation, the acts now IL force
relating 10 The restriction OF Chinese innnigra-
tiOn into This country expire, whether In 1892 or
1894; aud also as 10 whether the Chinese ex-
cluslon act OF 1888 Will have any force efeci,
ard If SO In what respect and TO what extent,
after the restriction acts referred to shall have
expired by the provisions OF their OWL limitation,
and report 10 the Senate in December next
The report by the judiciary Committee
was held in confidence and is now published
for the first time. a synopsis is given as
follows: In response TO the first inquiry
contained in the resolution your committee
are of the opinion that the act approved
May s. 1882, as amended by the actapprovt d
july D, 1884, IN so FAR as the period of suS-
pension provided for in the first section of
each Of such acts are concerned does not
expire until the expiration OF ten years
from the date Of the amendatnry act namely
July 3, 1884 The legislation therefore
incorporated in the two acts lin so far
aS il relates TO the suspen sion or coming Of
Chinese laborers to the United States Will
cease to be operative Oh the 4th day Of July,
1894.
OLuUuDteulg one Oi iUb main purposes OIL
the amendatOTy act Of 1884 was to extend
the existence Of the operation Of the suspen-
sion clause TO later period than that pre-
scrbed by the act OF 1882. Hence it is quite
apparent that the FIRST section Of the act or
1884 extends over the period of suspensio on
until July 4, 1894. The fact that the words
latter expiration Of said 90 days." which
constitute part OF the first section of 1882
are omitted in the amendatory section in the
act Of 1884 would seem 10 be conclusive
at71r .
of Congress that the amendatOry section
should be regarded as substitute or repeal
OF the first section OF the act OF 1882. To
give to the amendatory legislation any other
construction would be 10 cOnstTue that
legislation as shortening the period of the
suspension prescribed in the original act to
the extent OF 90 days rather than the ex-
tending Of ii two years, as was undoubtedly
the intention Of Congress, as clearly ap-
pears from the whole Of the amendatory
act III the amendat0ry section is 10 be re-
garded and read as a section Of the statute
OF the date OF May, 1882. then the period of
the suspension must be held to be shortened
just 80 days from that prescribed by the
original section / of the act Of 1882. But
the act of 1884 shows in lis first sec
tion that 1t Is amendatory of the first
section Of the act of 1882, hence
1t takes the place of the latter. and if
there is not direct repeal of such section
it certainly is by implication. The rule as
IL
Mr.. Chief Justice Waite in delivering he
opinion of the Supreme Court in King vs.
Cornell. 106 u. s., 395, said: while repeal
by Implication Is not favored, it is well set
respects repugnant, If the latter act covers
the whole subject Of the earlier and en-
braces non provisions which plainly show
that 1t was intended as substitute for the
hrst, 1t will operate as repeal"
This language Is quoted by Chief Justice
N nh nQ6 aNf I'M in hn
oi Fisk VS.. Henarie ct al, No. 11S October
term, 1891; decided January 4, 1892.
Effect Of Amendment.
Your committee must not be understood
as expressing an opinion as to what might
be the effect Of an amendment of prior
act or a section of an act by legislation,
declaring that such an act or section is
lolows: In case wherein there is
no material omissions in the act
OK the section amendstory or new provisions
In the amendatory act which would, unlike
tiLe case under consideration, clearly show
tnat IL was intended As a substitute for the
act or section amended. The next question
propounded by the resolution is "as to
wnetheT the chinese exclusion act of 1883
VIII nave any force or effect and, il so, In
what respect and to what extent. after
the restriction acts referred to shall have ex
pired by provision Of their own limita-
tion ?" 1t is very clear that the first section
OF the act OF 1888 only relates TO such
Chinese laborers as, at any time prior to
the passage Of that act had been, then were
OF might at any time thereafter become
residents within the United States aud who
shall have departed or might depart there
from and who have no. returned before
the passage OF the act. It has no appIica-
have never been residents of the United
States. Hence it is apparent that while the
hrst section OF the act may remain opera
tive after 10 years, the suspension period
provided Tor In the acts OF 1852 and 1884
mas expired, IN preventing return to
The United States OF such Chinese
lab0rers as are now or who ever have been
residents therein, and who have de art ed
or who may hereafter depart thereIrom,