The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1893-05-11
Arguments Before The Suprem, Court
In Regard 10 the Gsafy Law
WHAT THE LAWYERS SAID
Some OF Them impugn the Con-
stitutionaiity Of the Law.
While Others Defend the
Right OF Congress-.

act upon an appeal from u judgment Of
the United States circuit court for the
southern district Of New York. II at
iractcd an attendance that more than ex-
haustcd the limited accommodations of
the court room. Tho visitors included
many prominent members of the bar and
large number of ladies. The argument
was opened by Joseph II. Choate OF New
York for the petitioners for writ of
'habeas corpus. Fong Yuc Ling. Won Qian
and Lee Joe. Choat said that he believed
that 1t was not permissible for counsel to
seek 10 impress upon this court the i'm
poriance aud magnitude of the ques-
tions involved In cases submitted for
its Adjudication. Nevertheless. he said,
he would SO far transgress that rule as To
state broadly the two questions Mt issue.
They were: First, shall unorrend ng. help
less residents of this country. under the
authority of the act of congress. without q
review by its courts, be transported TO the
sea shore and thence dcporied to their na-
tive country; and second. in case the eni-
peror of China, shall tomorrow feel in
clined TO follow tho example of this great
enlightened country and expei from his
domain Americans residing therein, shall
tho voice of this people. either through its
government. it's press or by individuals,
be prevented from uttering a single pro-
test?
II appeared from this that Leo Joe's
case presented, in addition to tho lues-
tionsfnvolvcd In the others. the constitu-
tionali,y of that provision Of the exclusion
act. requiring the Chinese to present
white witnesses in support Of their right
to receive q certificate. After u resume
of the provision OF the treaty and the leg
islativc history of the relation of tho
United States and China. Choatc said:
"Tbc act OF May 5, 1892, was passed in
accordance with tho desire to keep out
more Chinese from this country. The sixth
section is wholly distinct from and unlike
the other sections. The first five sections
follow the provisions Of the treaty Of lssO.
BY the provisions OF the Burlingamo
treaty. il was decided that when in the
opinion Of the United States government il
bocame evident that tho importation of
Chinese threatened tho welfare Of this
country, the Chinese government agreed
that this country might regulate the conn
ing OF such Chinese. but not absolutely
prohibit IT,"
Choate submitted that the exclusion act
deprived his clients Of their liberty with
out due process OF law, in direct violation
OF the fifth amendment to the constitu-
tion, to the protection OF which they are
unquestionably entitled and. further. by
the sixth section OF the act, the appellants
arc deprived of their property without due
process OF law, and IL is. therefore,. uncon-
stitutional. Other points were made by
Choatc in opposition to the validity of tho
law.
f,.In lao, L..
already been enacted a law prov iding for
the expulsion OF persons not lawfully en-
titled to remain in the United States. Il
is hard TO reconcile the title with the con-
struction put upon the section. which
takes away the right already conferred To
remain in the country. Tho lower court
recognizes the right of these people whom
! represent. to remain i'm tho United
States, and then II takes 1t away from
them. Is il the intention of tho United
States to revoke the treaty already made
with friendly nation and thus deprive
thousands of people OF residence whom. it
10 already decided, have right to remain
here?
"The Chinese have o right to remain
hero and according to the act they shall
have q right 10 remain here as long az
thcy comply with the prov isions Of this
act. One other reason why the intention
of the Chinese to return TO China should
not be imputed to the farmers act. he
cause congress has no powers in time Of
peace to cxpel all or any friendly aliens
who come here upon invitation and have
taken up residences"
Solicitor General Aldrich argued In
favor OF the consiitutiouality OF the
Geary law. which, he said. had not for its
purpose the deportation OF Chinese labor.
ers as the counsel for the petit
TONERS enormously claimed. but 20 pro
vide for system OF Identification and
registration for such as are here.
This In the lawful purpose. whether ap-
piled to citizens or aliens. In the face Of
tho right OF the government to require
Identification and registration of it's citi-
sens. their possessions and resources and
locations, never seriously disputed, the
means by which the Identification Is at.
tained. the solicitor general contondcd. arc
lawful and reasonable and human in theiI
provisions. Aldrich maintained the right
Of congress 10 require aliens or citizens to
register or TO obtain certificates Of idcnii
flcation: the power Of congress to author
izc judge. without the Intervention OF q
jury TO sentence TO deportation IA pcrssn
who has not procured and is not IN
possession OF the prescribed certificates
that the ''nation has "A right, ac'
cortling to international law To pre-
scribe the terms upon which th.
citizens or the subjects Of other nation.
shall be admitted to its territory; to for
bid such admission or. having admitted
such citizens and subjects. to regulate and
limit their residence therein; and, when
ever il chooses TO do SO. to suspend sGcl
residence altogether and require that they
shall depart from its territory; that the
United States is a nation possessing, like
other powers, with other nations. exercise
of ordinary aud necessary means of self
preservation. From this u follows that
there Is a police power OF the United
States which extends to and embraces al
subjects confided tn general government
and against which the Chinese alien resi-