The herald., 1893-05-16

senctity OF an oath. He would moi
touch upon the wisdom. he policy, even
the Justice OF the act. Iheee questions
were for the political, legislative and
executive departments OF this gov
einment,. If the act were within
their constitutional powers, and itwould
be ont OF place for the court 10 inter.
fere. What congress- had done had not
been to provide for any definition Of
crime in the act nor TO provide sny pun.
ishment. II provided thst the pereons
in question ahould be aent out Of the
country 10 the place from whence they
came. It provided not for the adjuoica-
tion OF = crime, but simply for the re-
moval OF persons whose presence con-
Eress considers inconsistent with the
public welfare. 1t must be remembered
that Chinese cannot be naturalized.
Doubtless they are entitled to the se-
rurity and safeguard guaranteed by the
constitution and laws in such measure
as they provide, but there was nothing
In the constitution or laws which im-
Pugned the power OF congress to COM
pei them to leave the country.
Justice Gray said an opinion in writ
ing would ne filed as room rs possible.
JUSTICE BREWER DIssENTs.
At the conclusion OF Justice Gray's
opinion, Justice Brewer announced that
he was compelled to dissent from the
majority OF the court. He read his viewH
at some length, declaring in substance
that the act OF 1892 was uneonstitution-
al /; that II upheld there was no guaran-
tee that similar treatment might not be
accorded other classes OF our popula-
tion.
Justice Brewers opinion was verbal
one and at its conclusion he notified tho
court that he would prepare an ex-
tended written opinion on the subject
which would be- filed in the records OF
the case. He said the fourteenth
amendment could not be construed as
being entirely confined to the protection
OF citizens OF the United States. It's pro-
visions applied to sll people living in the
jurisdiction Of the United States.
He defined the meaning OF the use OF
the word persons" in the fifth amend
ment, which he said must be equally
comprehensive 30, also, must be the
sixth amendment. In his opinion there
was no question regarding the general
power of the government to enact laws
keeping people out of the United States,
or to Hummarily deal with persons who
unlawfully came in. However, this act
dealt with persons who were lawfully
in the United States. 1t ia not
possible that any law can be
put into effect that shall take
property from people within our border,
for which compensation ia not given. 1t
is but fair to say deportation is punish
ment 1t is deprivation of liberty and
removal from home, family, business
and property. This can be considered
nothing less than punishment OF the
eeverest nature.
Justice Brewer held II a man has been
born, brought up and established here,
he can be seized and driven from the
country under the proyieions of the
Geary act. He insisted that the powers
conferred ON the collector were surely
not such as to constitute O due process
of law.
Justice Brewer did not believe the
provisions of the Geary law made Just
provision in reference to bringing unreg
istered Chinese before proper Judges
with due respect to limitation as to their
power, and for theee reasons declared
unequivocally against the law.
JUSTICE FIELD DENoUNcEs THE ACT.
Justice Field, who delivered the opin-
ion OF the supreme court in the first Gaze
under the exclusion act also read dis
senting opinion. He made wide diff
ference between immigrants and de-
ported alien residents and characterized
the act in the strongest language as in
human, brutal and violation of the
in every section. He re-
gretted to say that the decision of the
court to his mind was freught with the
gravest dangers to constitutional liberty
He said: "rhe power OF the govern
ment to exclude Foreigners from this
country, that is, prevent them from en-
tering it whenever public interests, in
it's Judgment, require such exclusion,
has been repeatedly asserted by the
legislative department, but the deporta-
tion from this country OF persons law
fully domiciled therein by permission of
the government and engaged in
the ordinory pursuits OF life, has
never been asserted by the govern
ment since it's foundation, except
for crime or as an act of war in view of
existing or anticipated hostilities, un-
lees the alien act of 179S can be consid-
cred as recognizing that doctrine. In
no other instance until the law before us
was passed, has any public man had the
boldneea to advocate the department of
friendly aliens in time OF peace.
/ repeat the statement that in
no other instance has the deport-
ment OF friendly aliens been
advocated as lawful measure by any
department OF our government, and ii
will surprise most people to learn that
any such dangerous and despotic power
lies in our government which will au-
thorize it to expel at pleasure in times
of peace whole bodies of friendly for
eigners OF any country domiciled herein
by it's permission.
"Is it possible that congress can, Mt
its pleasure, expel at any time Irish,
German, French and Englieh people
who have taken up their residence here
on invitation of the government, in dis.
regard of guarantees of legislation, sim
ply on the ground that they have not
bsen naturalized? The moment any
human being comes within the consent
of the government, and such conse nj
will always be implied when not pur-
posely withheld, and in case oI
Chinese laborers before the United
States was on terms given by treaty, he
becomes subject to all its laws and
amenable to their punishment and en-
titled to their protection. Arbitrary and
despotic authority can no more be exer-
cised over them with reference to their
persons and property than over the
persons and property of native born
citizens. They differ only from
citizens in that respect that they cannot
LII l.