Fisherman & farmer. [volume] (Edenton, N.C.) 1887-19??, 1893-05-26
CHINESE EXCLUSION LAW.
THE SUPREME COURT SAYS IT
Is CONSTITUTIONAL.

Three of the Eight Justices Read Dis.
senting Opinions-Justice Field
Denounces the Law as Brutal-It
VIII Cost 100000 to Depori
the Unregistered Mongolia0s.
The Supreme Court of the United States 4.
Washington has affirmed the constitutionahty
Of the Geary Chinese Exclusion and Regis
| tration act The opinion was announced by
Justice Gray Chief Justice Fuller and JUS
tees Field AID Brewer dissenting. The an
nouncement that a decision in the case was
expected attracted O large attendance of spec
tators. and the fact that II was the last day OF
the term accounted for the presence OF an
unusually large array of attorneys within the
bar, including ACKNOWLEDGEMENT lney, SoGci-
tOr-General .Aldrlch, and Senators PuSh,
Dolph, and Cockrell. Ex-Justice Strong and
several members of the Diplomatic Corps
were interested spectators
Justice Gray in announcing the judgment
of the court said that the power OF this Ma
ton to restrict or prohibit the immigration
OF any aliens into the country, or to require
such aliens already in the country to re-
move therefrom, was a well settled
principle OF international law, and
was confirmed by an unbroken line
Of decisions In this court. The
power the Government D60 not
transcribed any of its constitutional limita-
tons in the act under consideration. 1t was
within tts power to determine the regulations
under which these aliens should be per-
nitted to remain in the United States or,
failing to observe these regulations, they
should be required to leave the
country. The provisions of section
of the act which are the part of the
law particularly at issue, were
not inconsistent with the relations and duties
of the legislative and judicial departments of
the Government. The mode of procedure
Bet forth in the section is similar to that in
other well-established proceedings, such as
the habeas corpus and naturalization, fixing
the requirements of citizenship and the like,
IN which the judicial branch OF the Govern
ment accepted the determination of the Ex-
ecutive upon the questions involved.
AS to the requirements that the Chinese en-
titled to remain in this country should estab-
fish that right by the evidence of one credi-
table white witness. Justice Gray said that
it was within the power of the Legislature to
determine the character of evidence that
might be received in a case at law and what
force should be given to the testimony SO Of
fered Not discussing the wisdom nor the
justice Of the act in question, which was be-
You'd the province of the judicial branch of
the Government, it remained only
to say that the Judgment of the
Circuit Court for the Southern District OF
New York in refusing to grant writs ofhabeas
corpus to the several petitioners was af-
firmed. Mr.. Justice Gray said that it had
been impossible, in the brief time elapsing
since the hearing of the argument upon the
petitions to prepare in writing tho opinion
of the court. It would be filed cs soon as it
was possible
Justice Brewer said that he felt compelled
to dissent from the view of the majority of
the court. He read his views at some
length, declaring in substance that the act of
1892 was unconstitutional, and that if it were
upheld there was no guarantee that similar
Treatment might not be accorded to other
classes Of our population that the Chinese.
Justice Field. who delivered the opinion of
the court in the first case under the Exclusion
act, also read dissenting opinion. He held
that there was wide difference between eX-
clusion of immigrants and the deportation of
alien residents, and he characterized the act
in the strongest language as lnhuman and
brutal, and as viOlative Of the Constitution in
every section. He regretted to say that the
decision of the court was to his mind fraught
with the gravest dangers to the priceless con-
stttutional liberties of the people.
Chief Justice Fuller also dissented from
the opinion OF the court. He denied the
soundness Of the proposition that the cases
before the court were such as the political
department Of the Government alone could
deal with. 1t was, in his view, judicial
question, and, however reluctant courts
may be to pass upon the constitution
atty of legislative acts, it was the very
essence OF judicial duty TO do so when
the discharge of that duty was properly i'm
posed upon it. He entertained no doubt that
the provisions of the fifth and fourteenth
amendments were universal in their appica-
ton, and that while the general Government
was invested. SO far as foreign cOun-
tries were concerned, with all the pow
ers necessary to the maintenance Of its
absolute independence and security, 1t
could not, in virtue OF a supposed inherent
sovereignty, absolutely deal with persons
lawfully and peacefully within its domain
The act before the court was not an act to
aDrogate or repeal treaty, nor to expel
could be imputed to Congress. Its object
was to prescribe method of registration. and
the deportation denounced by way of punish
ment was, in his view. an unusual punish
ment not authorized by the Constitution.
j. Hubley Ashton of counsel for the Chinese
moved for a rehearlng Of the case and al
argument before q full bench OF the next
term At present the court stands five to
three IN support of the law. Justice Harlan
being absent. The court took ssort recess
to consider the motion and afterward denied
it. SO the opinion stands as announced.
Secretary Carlisle, soon after he heard of
the decision of the Supreme Court, went to
the Executive Mansion and had a conference
with the President on the subject. He re-
manned for an hour or more. Attorney
General Olney said that until the line of
action to be pursued by our Government was
mapped out. he could say nothing on the
subject, except that the Department of jus
tice had no money for deporting Chinese.
Conservative estimate places the amount