The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1893-05-20
THE EXCLUSION ACT VALID.
ITS c0NsTITUTI0NALlTY AFFIRMED BY
THE SUPREME COURT.
Dissenting Observation-Disclosures Chi
namen May Escape Deportafion-No
Money to Carry Ont the Act. which
May Cost S6,0O0.000.

Court of the United States today affirmed the
constitutionalty of the Geary Chinese Exclu-
sion and Registration act. The opinion was
announced by Justice Gray, Chief Justice
Fuller, Justice Field, and Justice Brewer
dissenting.
Justice Gray, in announcing the judgment
of the court, said that the power of this
nation to restrict or prohibit the immigration
of any aliens into the country, or to require
such aliens already in the country TO remove
thefefrom, was a well settled principle OF
international law, and was confirmed by an
unbroken line Of decisions in this court.
The legislative power of the Government had
not transcribed any of its constitutional
limitations in the act under consideration.
1t was within its power to determine the regu-
latons under which these aliens should be
permitted to remain in the United States, or,
failing to observe these regulations, they
should be required to leave the country.
The provisions OF section of the act, which
are the part of the law particularly al issue,
were not inconsistent with the relations and
duties of the legislative and judicial depart
ments of the Government. The mode of
procedure set forth in the section is similar
to that in other well established proceedings,
such as the habeas corpus and naturalization,
fixing the requirements Of citizenship and the
like, in which the judicial branch of the
Government accepted the determination OF
the Executive upon the questions involved.
As to the requirements that the Chinese
entitled to remain in this country should estab-
lsh that right by the evidence of one credible
white witness. Justice Gray said that it was
within the power OF the Legislature to deter
mine the character OF evidence that might be
received in case at law and what force
should be given to the testimony so offered.
Not discussing the wisdom nor the justice OF
the act in question, which was beyond the
province of the judicial branch If the Govern
ment, it remained only to say that the judg
ment of the Circuit Court for the Southern
District of New York in refusing to grant
writs of habeas corpus to the several petit
TONERS was affirmed. Mr.. Justice Gray said
that it had been impossible, in the brief time
eapsiug since the hearing of the argument
upon the petitions, to prepare IN writing the
opinion of the court. 1t would be filed as
soon as it was possible.
JUSTICE BREWER OPPOSES THE MAJORITY.
At the conclusion of Justice Gray opinion
Justice Brewer announced that he felt COM
PEELED to dissent from the view of the ma or-
NV of the court He read his views at some
length, declaring in substance that the act OF
1892 was unconstitutional and that if it were
upheld there was no guarantee that similar
treatment might not be accorded to other
classes of our population than the Chinese.
JUSTICE FIELDS DISSENTING OPINION.
Justice Field delivered the principal dis
senting opinion. After quoting from the de
cision of the court previously rendered in the
exclusion cases, he said:
Il had the honor to be the organ of the
court in announcing this opinion and judg-
fi, fke.ra
pressed in all particulars, but between leg
islation for the exclusion of Chinese persons
that is. to prevent them from entering the
country-and Legislation for the deportation
of those who had acquired "a residence in the
country under treaty with China there is q
wide and essential difference. The power oil
the government to exclude foreigners fro II
this country, that is, prevent them from enter
ing it, whenever the public interests in its
Judgment require such exclusion, has been
repeatedly asserted by the legislative anC
executive departments of our government and
never denied, but deportation from the coun
try of persons lawfully domiciled therein by
permission OF the government and engaged
in the ordinary pursuits of life has never beer
asserted by the legislative or executive de
partments of the government since its founda
ton except for crime or as an act of war in
/ less the alien act of 1898 can be considered as
recognizing that doctrine. That act vested ii
the President power to order all such alien.
as he should adludge dangerous to the peace
/ and safety of the United States, or shoulC
! have reasonable grounds to suspect were con
/ cerned in any reasonable or secret machina
tions against the government, to depart from
| the territory of the United States within sucl
| time as should be expressed in his order. The
passage of this act produced great excitemen
/ throughout the country and was severely de
! noRnced by many of its ablest statesmen ant
| iurists as unconstitutional and barbarous, ant
| among them the great names OF jefferson
4 and Madison, honored and revered for theii
| life devotion to the principles of constitu
tioual liberty. 1t was defended by its advo
| Gates as a war measure. John Adams, the
/ President of the United States at the time
| who approved the act and against whom
/ the responsibility for its passage wa
charged, states in his correspondence that
| the bill was intended as a measure of thai
character Volume 8 of his works, p. POI.
| The State of Virginia denounced it in sever
\ terms. Massachusetts, in answer to Vir
| ginia' 5 action, said the removal of aliens i
| the usual preliminary of hostiities and JUST
fed by the invariable usage of nations
Actual hostilities had, unhappily, been long
expected, and formal declaration of it the
government had reason daily to expect Z
Elliott's Debates, $751;
''The act had briefexistence. 1t was re
pealed with the change Standardization ant
has ever since been the subject of execration
In no other instance, until the law before u
was passed, has any public man had the bold
ness to advocate the department of friendl.
aliens in time of peace. | repeat the state
ment, that in no other instance has the de
pertinent of friendly aliens been advocated a
a lawful measure by any department of oul
government And it will surprise most pee
pie to learn that any such dangerous AM
despotic power lies in our government whicl
will authorize it to expel at pleasure, in tim
of peace, the whole body of friendly foreign
ers of any country domiciled herein by it
permission, a power which can be brough
into exercise whenever it may suit the pleas
ure of Congress, and be enforced without re
gard to the guarantees of the constitution 70
the protection of the rights of person ant
property. Is it possible that Congress can, a
its pleasure, expel at any time the Irish, Gel
man, French and English, people who ma
have taken up their residence here on the IN
vitation of the government in disregard c
the guarantees of the constitution, simply OF
the ground that they have not been natural
lied?
"There are many thousands of Chinese Ia
borers who came to the country and reside
in it under the additional articles of tn
treaty adopted in 1868, and were in the cour
try at the time of the adoption of the add
tional treaty of November, 1880. 70 thes
laborers, thus lawfully within the limits c
the United States section of the act of Ma
5, 1892, relates.
'sThe purpose of this section was to secur
the means Of readily identifying the Chimes
laborers present in the country and entitle
to remain from those who may have clan
destinely entered the country in violation q
its laws Those entitled to remain by haviu
certificate of their identification would ena
Bile the officers of the government to readil
discover and bring to punishment those NJ
entitle to enter, but are excluded. To pre-
cure such certificate was not a hardship I
the laborers. but means to secure full prt
lection to them and at the same time prever
r an evasion of the law.
The object being constitutional, the onl
question for our consideration is the Lawful
. ness of the procedure provided for its accom-
plshment, aud this must be tested by tn
provisions Of the constitution and laws ii
I al of all