The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-05-11
THE GEARY LAW ARGUED.
Its Constitutionality Discussed Be-
fore the Supreme Court Of
the Land.
Joseph Fl. Choate, OF New York,
Appears for the Side OF the
Celestials.

Celestials.
Solicitor General Aldrich Represents the
United States In tho Contention
The Arguments.
WARRINGTON. May 10.-A special session
Of the supreme court to-day to hear a'Ru-
ment upon the constitutionality Of the
Heary Chinese exclusion act. upon appeal
from the United States circuit court for the
southsrn distriot of New York, attracted An
attendance that moro than exhausted the
limited accommodations of tho court room.
Tho visitors included many prominent
members of the bar and . largo number OF
ladies. The argument was opened by DOS.
H. Choate, OF New York. for the petitioners
for the writ OF habeas corpus. FonR Yue
Ling, Won Quan and Lee Goe. Choate
said he believed 1t not permissible for coun-
sci to seek to impress upon this court the
importance and magnitude OF the question
involved In cases submitted for its adiadi-
cation. Nevertheless. hs said, he would SO
far trsnsgress the rules as to state broadly
First, Shall 100000 unoRendinR, helpless
residents of this country, under authority
of an act of congress, without review by
its courts, be transported to the seashore,
then deported to their native country; and.
second. in case the emperor OF China shall
to- morrow feel inclined to follow the ex-
ample of this great, enlightened country,
and expel from his domain the Americans
residing therein, shall the voice of this
people, either ths ough their government. the
press. OF by individuals. be prevented from
uttsring single protest?
Choate prefaced his argument with
statement of facts in the three cases. which,
he said. differed chiefly In being initiated at
various stages Of the operation of the law.
1t appeared from this that Leo Goes case
presented, in addition to the questions in
volved in the others. the constitutionality
of the provision of the exclusion act reqnlr-
ing the Chinese TO present white witnesses
in support of their right to receive certiti-
oates.
After resume of the provision OF the
treatv and legislative history in relation to
"The act of May 5, 1892. was passed in &C
cordancs with the desire to keep out more
Chinese from the country. Ihe sixth sec
tion, is wholly distinct from and unlike any
of the other sections. The first five SEQ
tions follow the provisions of the treaty OF
| $780, In the provisions of the Burlingame
| treaty ii was decided that when. in the
opinion of the United States government
IL became evident that the importation of
Chinese thi satened the welfare of this
county the Chinese government agreed
that this country might regulate tho coming
| of such Chinese, but may not absolutely
prohibit.
MAY it please your honors, there had al
ready been enacted law providing for the
expulsion Of persons not lawfully entitled
to remain in the United States. II is hard
to reconcile the title with the construction
put upon the section which takes away q
right already conferred, to remain in the
country. The lower court recognizes the
right OF there people whom l represent to
remain in the United States and then takes
it away from them. Is it the intention OF
the United States TO revoke treaty already
made with q friendly nation, and thus de-
prive thousands of people of residence
whom it has already been decided have tn.
right to remain here? The Chinese have
the right to remain here and according ts
this act they shall have the right to remair
here as long as they comply with the pro
the intention to return the Chinese t
China should not be imputed to the fram
ers of the act. Because congress has NJ
power in time of peace to expel all or an
friendly aliens who come here upon invita-
tion and have taken up residence"
Choate submitted that the exclusion &C
deprived his clients of their liberty withou
. due process of law. in direct violation Q
the fifth amendment to the constitution
, the protection of which they are unques
tionably entitled. and further, by the sixt
!, = section of the act appellants are deprived c
a their property without due p ooess of Law
: and it is therefore unconstitutional
j, Other points made by Choate in opposi
|, tion to the validity of the law were: III
: third article of the constitution ls clearl
Q violated in three respects bv the sixth sec
| tion of the act. First in that it attempt
i: States judge" whereas the judioit
y power is to be vested only in tn
n courts of the United States. Secon,
? so far as 1t confers judicial power
a attempts to confer it upon an individns
: Judge. no particular court. and not in an
r officer; mad. third. because the third artio
, provides that the judicial power shall OK
- tend to cases that should be brought by az
a before United States judg
y The section of the act under dis
IA crssion is in effect bill OF attainder. an
, vision 3, section 8, article +, Of the const
J. tuition. and finally, that the power some
times called police regulations does n
~ reside in congress.
N Solicitor. .Genet al Aldrich argued in fav
of the constitutionality of the Geary La
" which he said had not for its purpose Il
deportation of Chinese laborers; as oouns
J. for petitioners erfonsously claimed. but
provide system of Identification and rel
y istration for such as are here. This IL
.. lawful purpose, whether applied to ctttxel
or aliens, in the face of tho right OF u
a. government to require Identification al
q. registration of its citizens. Their posse
sions and resources and locations are new
H. seriously disputed. The means by whic
Identification is attained, the solicito
II general oontendsd, are lawful and reason
d. Bic and humane in their provisions.
Aldrich maintained the right OF conGre
a, 20 require aliens or citizens to register
n. obtain certificates of Identification. L
in power OF congress to authorize juda
without intervention of . jury, to senten
n. TO deportation . person who has not pr
10. cured aud IL not la the possession or
prescribed certificate; that the nation h
n. the right, according TO international la
d. to prssO ibe terms upon which citizens
subjects Of other nRtions shall be ndn,tt
to It's territory. forbid such admission,
having admitted auoh citizens and suhleo
to regulate and limit their residence thei
nd in; aud, whenever II chooses to do 40.
suspend such reaidsuoe altogether. aud
AN auito that they shall depart it's territo
q that the United States ID nation possei
=, ing like powers with other nations 10 ex
- oise ordinary and necessary means of sc
A. preservation. From this IL follows Il
there is police power OF The United Sta
ks whioh extsnas &c and embraces all snhle
u oontidsd to the general government, II
auainst the exercise OF which a Chin
An 500 y~l