The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-05-11
Is 1T CONSTITUTIONAL?
ARGUMENT IN THE GERRY CHI
YEsE INCLUSION act CASES.
Mr.. Joseph Choate Speaks for the Chinese
and Solicitor General Aldrich FOR
the Government.

session Of the supreme court to-day 70
hear argument upon the constitutionality
OF the Geary Chinese exclusion act, upon
appeal from the judgment Of the United
States Circuit Court for the Southern
district OF New York, attracted an at
tendance that more than exhausted the
limited accommodations Of the court
room. The visitors included many promi-
nent members Of the bar, and large
number Of ladies.
The argument opened by Mr.. Joseph
Choate, Of New York, for the petitioners
Tor a writ Of habeas corpus Tor FOng lue
ring. Wong Quan and Lee Joe Mir.
Choate said ne believed IL was not per
mlssible for counsel to seek 10 impress
upon this court the importance ana mag
nitude of the questions involved IN the
cases submitted for its jurisdiction. NeF-
ertheless. he said he would so Iar trans
gress the rule as 10 state broadly Two
questions at issue. They Were-hIsl'
shall 100 900 OF unoffending and helpless
! residents of this country, under the au-
/ thoritv Of an act Of Congress. without
| review bv its courts be transported 10
! the snashore and thence depOrted 10 theT
native country; and. second, In case tHc
Emperor of China shall tomorrow levi
! inclined TO follow the example OF lHia
great and enlightened country ana eNpel
from his domain the Americans feSiulnH
| therein. shall the voice OF this people
eitber through its Government, its press,
| or by individuals. be prevented from Ut
tering n single protest?
Mr. Choate prefaced his argument win
| a statement of facts in the three cases
which. he said. differed chiefly IN being
Initiated at various stages Of the opera
| ton Of the law. II appeared from thiS
! that Lee JOe's case presented, I'm addltloh
to the questions involved i'm the others.
| the constitutionality Of the provision oi
the exclusion act. requiring the 'hlheSe
| to presept white witnesses i'm support OF
| their right to receive "A certificate.
! Some Of Mr. Choate's points were thal
! the court cannot impute 10 congress 'n'
! intent. by the sixth section or the ac',
| to banieh from the soil Of the United
| States Chinese laborers, who AT the
| time Of the passage Of the act, or az the
Iapse Of one year from its passage are
| therein described as Chinese laborers
| entitled 10 remain I'm the United states,
| unless EXPRESSLY required 10 40 so uc-
| causa such an enactment would be
| gross violation Of treaty rights ana pe-
cause there Is no power In congress 10
expel friendly alien residents except as
a punishment for crime.
tion is clearly violated I'm three respects
bv the sixth section Of the act first I'm
| that il attempts 10 vest executive power
| I'm "a United States Judge, whereas
| judicial power is to be vested only IN the
| courts OF tho United States; second so
far as it confers judicial power II at
| tennis to confer II upon an indiVldual
| Judge Of no particular court ana not IN
| any court and also In a collector, an
| ovecutfvs officer: and third, because the
third article provides that the judicial
| royrer shall extend only 10 eases ana
what is 10 be brought by the act before
| "a limited States Judge Is not case
| The section of the act under discussion
| is. I'm effect. a bill Of attainder' ana Is
| unconstitutional as a violation OF SUD
| division 3. section g. article !, or the
Constitution. And finally that the power.
| sometimes called police regulation, does
not reside in Congress.
Charles III. Aldrich. SOlicitOr-General,
appeared on behalf of the United states.
and argued for the constitutionality OF
the Geary law, concluding his argument
with this paragraph:
| Assuming the maxim that the saiety
Of the people is the supreme la" theh
the police power I'm its relations 10 every
subject Of danger must. under our sys-
tenn. rest either in the States or the
United States or the people. II il Is as-
sumed that Chinese alien labor IS pub
| lie danger threatening the safety OF the
| people. then the power to cope with II
rests somewhere. If not in the United
states. then it is in the States or the
| people II the latter, II occurs 10 me
| that the Chinese residents i'm this coun-
| trv have need to repeat the old prayer
that they may be saved from their friends
Tor COUNSEL. for if they can induce the
court TO hold that the power does not
| belong TO the Federal Gvernment. but
vet rests I'm the people OF the several
| states. no person who has witnessed the
evils Of Chinese immigration and com
netition with our laborers can doubt that
The people Of the states afflicted there
with will promptly rid themselves OF the
baneful presence by appropriate legisla-
tinn IN that end. The last state OF the
| Chinese in the country would then be
worse th.n the FIRST; for. while the act
| now under consideration seeks only 10
nrevent the perpetration Of frauds upon
| the Government through the incoming OF
| other Chinese labOrers claiming 10 be en-
| pued to admission because Of former
residence any action by the people OF the
states most directly affected would pro-
bablv be drastic I'm It's check. with the
purpOse. not Of protecting the Govern
| ment and duly accredited Chinese, but oi
| oNnplllng 0nIfPly llNli tH'ii NDi''i't' "''
obnoxious race
Mr. J. Hubley Ashton. Of Washington,
| concluded the argument. Traversing
somewhat different ground from mat
covered hy his associate, Mr. Ashton
argued that the question presented 10 the
court concerned the fundamental prinei-
nIes Of American constitutional liberty
the rieht to freedom, property ana the
nursuit Of happiness Of many thousands
Of persons living and laboring long and
neaceablv under the protection OF the
constitution and laws Of this land' as
we'll as the friendly international reia-
tions between the United states ana
Cbira and the welfare OF American ciu-
zens and American interests IN that stea'
empire. ..,
throughout the progress OF the arsn-
mont the court and spectators alike gave
marked attention. Mr.. Choate, IN the
course Of his remarks. referred 10 inc
assertion in the printed argument OF tht
Solicitor-General that the Chinese resi-
dents Of this country had failed 10 regis
ter under the law in pursuance 10 advice
~ counsel. "On the contrary said Mr.
C'bofe. my advice and that Of all th'
counsel associated with me I'm the case
has been for the Chinese to register
But they did not"
The attorneys did not occupy the fui
time allotted to them by the court Mr.
Ashton bringing his argument 20 a clos'
al s.sO. there then remaining twenty-five
minutes of time at his disposal. Th'
court was adjourned until Monday next
| ,.ban 1, Ia exuectei n decision will b,