New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-05-11
THE CHINESE TEST CASES.
ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
JOSEPH III. CHoATE APPEARS FOR THE THREE
CHINAMEN-THE SOLICITORGEN
ERALS REPLY.

ERALS REPLY
Washington. May lO.-rAa special session OF the
supreme Court today to hear argument upon the con
sttuonaity OF tho Gcary Chinese Exclusion act.
upon appeal from the judgment of tie United states
Circuit Court for the Southern District OF Newiorh.
attracted attendance that more than exhausted The
limited accommodations OF the courtroom Toe wish
tors Included many prominent members OF the bar
and large number Of women.
I'll" argument opened By Joseph II. Choa:e. OF
New York for the petitioner, for writ OF habcas
corpus, Fong Yue Ting. Wong Guam and Lee joe.
Mr.. Choate said he believed II was not permissible
for counsel to seek TO impress upon ai court the I'M
portsncc and magnitude Of the questions Involved In
cases submitted for It's adjudication Nevertheless,
h. said he would 50 far tranSsre,s the rue to
state broadly two questions at issue. They We're.
first shall 100000 unohendng and helpless residents
of this country. under the authority OF act Of
Congress. without review by itS courts. be trans
ported the seashore and thence dcpOrtcd 10 their
native country Ard second. In The Emperor OF
China Shall tomorrow feel inclined follow the
ample of this great and enlightened country. and
pei from his domain the Americans residing therein.
shall the voice OF tits people. either through It's
Government, is press or b. iniivlddas, BE- pre-
vented from utenng a single protest.
Mr.. Choate prcaccd his argument with a statement
Of fact, In the three cases. which, he said differed
chiefly In being Initiated at various stages OF tie
operation of the law. Ii appeared from this that
Lee Jocs presented. In addition TO the questions
Involved In the others. the constuionality Of the
provisions OF the Exclusion act requiring the CAih'se
10 present white witnesses In support of their night
10 4eceive certificate. After reviewing tile treaty
and the legislative history Of the relations between
the United states and China. Mr.. thoite made his
point which that the Court cannot impute
to Congress the INTENT by The sixth section OF the
act, TO Danish from the United states Chinese
laborcIS Who at the time OF tie passage OF The aCt
or at the lapse of year from lis passage are
therein described Chinese laborer' entitled to
remain in the United states" unless expressly Ic'
quiied do 50. because such an enactment would
be gross violation OF treaty rights, and because
there is no power I'm Congress eXpe friendly alien
residents eXccp; Punishment for crime. surh Il
law. he cOntended cannot be passed by Congress On
the ground that the power TO pass II IS an inherent
power OF sovereI enty. The sovereign power Of ILL.,
Republic vests not in Congress- but in the people
A large paIt OF the argument here was devoted u
the point that the power expel allen residents ia
time of peace was never an incident Of the British
Sovereign power or preIogati,e OF the Clown
Following this, Mr.. Choate asserted that no power
Is gwen TO Congress by the Federal Constitution 10
remove friendly alien residents in time OF peace, ana
that the appellants were more than friendly alien
residents; they were dehzens Of this country A.
Stunning, then, that IL not the intent OF congress
10 expel from the country those Chinese IaDorcrS
whom it describes as lawfully entitled TO remain III
the United States" but only TO construct scheme
By which, as to each individual member Of that class.
his right as such member might BE- adJudcated ana
determined, and, coming to an examination Oi 'Ha'
scheme In the light OF the constitutional guarantees
of personal liberty Mr.. ChOate submitted That IL &c
prived these persons OF their liberty without due
process Of law and In direct violation OF the FIFTH
Amendment OF the Constitution. to the protection OF
which they were unquestionaby entitled, and fur
Their that by the sixth section of the act appellants
were deprived of their property without due process
OF law and 1t therefore unconstitutional.
Any other construction OF which the sixth section
Is capable argued Mr. ChOae, than the one given III
the contention that IL is violation of treaty rights,
is that it is an attempted exercise by Congress OF an
alleged power expel friendly aliens from our SOIL
applied to all Chinese laborers who shall b. ioahi
without certificate Of residence, although they are
still persons lawfully allowed to remain here that
is 10 saw 1t Is an intended revocation of the right
N remain here and an expulsion conditioned on their
beinc found here without certificate II the court
contrary the contention OF counsel Tor the peu-
uOners is constrained TO mputc 10 Congress sufh
cruel and barbarous intent. lie submitted mat such
an enactment was beyond the power OF congress ior
reasons already stated; and, further, that III the
manner OF its attempted exercise IL violated al lle
constitutional safeguards.
other points made by Mr. ChOate in opposition 70
The validity OF the law We're The Third Aiuc" OF tle
Constitution is clearly violated in three respects by
the sixth section OF the act first in that 1t attempts
10 vest executive power in "a United states Judge,
whereas judicial power IS to be vested only in the
courts Of the United States second far as il con
fers judicial power 1t attempts TO confer ii upon an
individual judge OF no particular court ard III no
court, and also In a collector, executive officer; and
third because the Third Article provides that the
judicial power shall extend only TO cases' and what
Is TO be brought by the act before United states
Judge is not case The section Of the act under
discussion is. In effect, lie urged. bill Of ataindcr
and is unconstitutional violation of subdivision
3, Section 8, Article 1 of the Constitution; and
finally that the power. sometimes called police
regulation, does not reside In Congress.
Charles ii. Adrich. solicitor General. appeared on
behalf Of the United states. and argued In favor Of
the cOnsttutlODalty Of the Geary Law. These cases.
he conended. could not be distinguished from the
Chinese Exclusion case Q3O United states j-ll In
which the court had decided most OF the points at
issue. The Geary Act had not for Its purpose the
deportation OF Chinese laborers, counsel for the
petitioners enormously assumed but 10 provide a
system OF identification and registration for such as
were here. This is lawful purpose, whether applied
10 citizens alensin fact the right OF the Govern
ment 10 require an identification and registration Of
its citizens OF their possessions and resources. ana
the location OF all these has never been seriously
disputed.
The means BY which the Identification is attained.
the Solicitor General cOntcndcd. also lawful. md
the act Is reasonable and humane In Its provisions.
The refusal OF the Chinese to observe the requirements
OF the law was under the advice OF certain eminent
legal gentlemen. In whose opinion the law Is uncon
siitu,ional; IAN opinion" he continued. switch.
] shall seek show. Is equivalent to denial of the
sovereignty the United States In the exercise Of the
enumerated powers of the Consitut on. OF toe authority
Of the previous decisions OF this court, and OF we'll
settled principles Of the law OF nations. Under such
circumstances II Is submitted that the scky scnti
mentality which Is calculated to adorn oratons OF
certain class. addressed TO other audiences than this
court Is wholly out OF place. We have here the vii |
full violation OF law upon the advice OF counsel
by large class of people owing allegiance to foreign
sovereign, by people not suited to Institutions
remaining "a separate and distinct race. inca pabe OF
assimilation having habits often OF the most PERM
cious character working at wages that debase your
own labOrng classes not bound by considerations
OF the sanetty OF oath. given TO eva,ions OF other
laws OF Congress. and by that body whose action |