St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-06-05
CONTRADICTORY.
The Judicial and Executive De-
Dartments Not in Accord.


WASHINGTON, June 4.-The decision
of the supreme court upon the Chinese
exclusion act, recently delivered, may
possibly have much wider scope and
affect greater variety of persons than
was probably foreseen by the associate
justices who Joined with Mr.. Gray in
declaring it to be the law Of the land.
The volume of foreign relations" for
1892. just published by the state depart
ment, contains a case in point wherein
the arguments used by foreign gov
eminent to justify or explain its de-
cree of expulsion of a citizen or the
United States, it is pointed out by
those who are familiar with the subject,
are in suggestive parallel with those
outlined by Justice Gray in announcing
the opinion of judgment of the supreme
court of the United States on the 18th
of last month. The circumstances of
the case as shown by the published cor
respondence were these: Leon Spint-
ger, born at Vienna, Austria, January.
1861, emigrated to the United States in
Februry, 1892; was naturalized in New
York in January, 1889, and returned to
Europe in November, 1889, and to
Vienna July, 1890. In an affidavit Mr..
Splinter declared that his residence was
New York, where he was a "maDu-
racturer," and that he intended ITO re-
turn to the United States within two
years with the purpose OF residing and
performing the duties of citizenship
therein"
In March, 1892, Splinter was notified
by the authorities of Vienna that he had
been expelled from Austria under a law
of 1871. He appealed to Minister Grant,
who brought the case to the attention Of
Count Kalnoky, prime minister for for
eign affairs. protesting that this treat
meant of Splinter was in violation of
the treaty of 1870 with AuStrO-HuDgary
and the United States, guaranteeing
certain rights and the protection thereof
to the citizens of their respective coun-
tries.
Replying to Minister Grants COM
plant OH behalf of Splinter, Count
WalserScheimb, for the minister of for
eign affairs, said that Spintzer's emf
grafton to the United States was mani
testify for the purpose of eyading the
military duty which the Austrian gov
eminent eXactS of the citizeuS; that the
expulsion of such individuals is based
upon considerations of public order;
and that every state has right to
reasons above stated; and that the
question whether and when reasons for
such expulsion exist can be Judged only
by an international point OF view"
This presentment accordS with the
views expressed by Justice Gray, and
the language is quite similar. Minister
Grant notified Count Kalnoky that this
government could not accept that i'll
depreciation of the treaty, position in
which he was supported by Secretary
Foster. who, i'll dispatch dated July
%, 1892, said, after stating that the
United States would entertain
proposition for a modiiica-
ton of the treaty in question,
'But so long as the treaty remains in
force the United States government will
insist upon compliance with its terms,
and, after full examination of the case
in point. il is compelled to dissent from
the views expressed by the AuStro-
Hungary government. As Splinter was
expelled on the vague and indefinite
ground of 1.-The interest of public
ORDER" and as no valid and explicit
reasons in support of the order are al
legged, your action In making a formal
protest is approved by tie department"
This ended the correspondence so far
made public. and as SpintZer's depart
ure for the United States was intimated
in one of Minister Grants letters, it
probably closed the incident. In view,
however, of the apparent Inconsistency
between the views Of the executive
and judicial branches Of the govern
ment. as disclosed by this correspond
ence and the decision oa the GeaIy