The Yellowstone journal. [volume] (Miles City, Mont.) 1893-1901, 1893-05-12
GEARlLAW ARGUED.
Joseph II. Choate, of New York
Appears for the Side of the
Celestials.
solicitor General Aldr;cI, Represent. the
United states in the Contention
The Arguments.

WASHINGTON. May lO.-.i special ses
sion OF the supreme court today to hear
argument upon the constitutionaIity of
the ''eary Chinese exclusion act. upon
appeal from the United States circuit
court for the Southern district of New
York. attracted an attendance that more
than exhausted the Accommodations of tbe
court room. The visitors included
many prominent members Of the bar
and large number Of ladies' The ar
sument was opened by jos. II. Choate.
Of Sew York. for the petitioners for the
writ "i habeas corpus. Fong Yuo Ling.
Won t9uan and Lee Goe. Choate said
| he believed it not permissable for
council 10 seek to impress upon this
court The Importance and magnitude of
| thequcstion involved in cases submitted
for its adjudication Nevertheless. he
said. he would SO far transgress the rules
as to state broadly the two questions al
issue. They were: First. shall 100000
! unoffending. helpless residents of this
country. under authority of an act of
Congress. without review by It's courts
he transported To the seashore. then de-
ported to their native home: and spcond
III case the emperor of China shall To
morrow feel inclined To follow the ey
ample of this great enlightened country,
and eNpel from his domain the Aneri-
cans residing therein. shall the voice of
tins people. either through their govern.
ment, the press. or by individuals. be
prevented from uttering single protest:
Choate prefaced his argument with a
statement of facts in the three cases. |
which he said differed chiefly in being |
initiated at various stages of the opera
tlons OF the law. 1t appeared from this |
that Lee Goes case presented. in add |
ton to the questions involved in the |
others. the constlu.ionaliy of the pro.
vision of the exclusion act requiring the
Chinese to present white witnesses sup
port Of their right to receive certificates.
After resume of the provision of the
treaty and legislative history in relation
TO the United States and China. Choate
said: The act of May >. 1892. was
passed with the desire to keep out more
Chinese from the country. The sixth
section. is wholly distinct from and un.
like any of the other sections The first
tive sections follow the provisions of the
treaty of 1850. In the provisions of the
treaty il was decided that
when. in the opinion of the United
States government, IL became evident
that the importation OF Chinese threat
nned the welfare of this country the
Chinese government agreed that this
country might regulate the coming of
such Chinese. but may not absolutely
May 1t please your honors. there had
already been enacted law providing
or the expulsion of persons not lawfully
to remain in the United States
I is hard to reconcile the title with the
put upon the section which
axes away right already conferred to
emain in the country. The lower court .
ecognlzes the right of their people
whom | represent to remain in the Uni !
Ell States and then takes it away from {
hem. Is it the intention of the United {
states to revoke a treaty already made
Win friendly nation. and thus deprive
thousands of people of residence. whom
has already been decided have the ,
lght To remain here: The Chinese .
ave the right to remain here and ac. @
ording to this act they shall have the G
lght TO remain here as long as they com Q
~ with the provisions of this act. One
ther reason why the intention to return
he Chinese to China should not be i'm. :
uted to the trainers of the act Be. a
ause congress has no power in time of {,
eace to expel all or any friendly aliens p
ho come here upon invitation and have y
iken up residence n
Choate submitted that the exclusion 7
Il deprived his clients of their liberty :
ithout due process of law. in direct vio- =
tion of the fifth amendment to the
the protection of which ..
ley are unquestionably entitled and n
lrther, by the sixth section of the act CT
'peliants are deprived of their property q
ithout due process of law and il is ::
lerefore unconstitutional. =.
Other points made by Choate in op. II
'sition To the validity of the law were: as
be third article of the constitution is m
early violated in three respects by the CO
Sfh section Of the act. First in that d
attempts 10 vest eNtroardinar, power
IA United States iu lge," whereas the
dlclal power is 10 be yestcd only In 1he