The herald., 1893-05-11
THE CHINESE TEST CASES,
The Special Session of the
Supreme Court.
Great Interest Taken in tho
Proceedings.
The COnstitutionality of the Geary
Law to Be Decided.
Lawyer Choate Makes MasterIy Pre-
sentstion of tho Chinese Side OF
the Case-soIicitor-G General
AIdrich's Reply.


By the Associated Press
WASHINGTON, May 10.--The speciar
session OF the supreme court today to
hear arguments upon the constitutions
ality of the Geary Chinese exclusion
act, upon appeal from the judgment of
the United States circuit court for the
southern district Of New York, attracted
an attendance that more than exhausted,
the accommodations of the court room.
The visitors included many prominent
members Of the bar and large number
of ladies.
MR.. cHoATE's ARGUMENT.
The argument was opened by Joseph
H. Choate Of New York, for the petit
tioners, for writ of habeas corpus in
the cases of Fong Cue Ling, Wong Quan
and Lee Joe. Choate said he believed
it was not per missible for counsel to
seek to impress upon this court the i'm
portance and magnitude OF the question
involved in cases submitted for its ad-
iudication; nevertheless, he said he
would so far transgress the rnle as to
state broadly the two questions at issue.
They were
First--ShalI 100000 unoffending, help
less residents of this country, under the
authority of an act of congress, without
review by its courts, be transported to
the aeashore, thence deported to their
native country?
Second-In case the emperor of China
shall tomorrow feel inclined to follow
the example of this great enlightened
country and expel from his domain the
Americans residing therein, shall the
voice of this people, either through its
government, its press, or by individuals,
be prevented from uttering single pro-
test?
Choate prefacsd his argument with a
statement Of the facts in the three cases..
which, he said, differed chiefly in being
initiated at various stages of the opera
tion Of the lag.
II appeared from this that Lee Joe's
case presented. in addition to the ques-
tions involved in the others, the consti-
tutionality of the provision of the ex-
clusion act requiring Chinese to present
white witnessed in support of their right
to receive certificates.
After resume OF the preparation of
the treaty and legislative history in the
relation of the United States and China,
Choate said
"The act Of May 5, 1862. was passed in
accordance with a desire to keep out
more Chinese from the country. The
sixth section is wholly distinct from and
unlike the other sections. The first five
sections follow the provisions of the
treaty of 1880. BY the provisions of the
Burlingame treaty it was decided that
when in the opinion of the United States
government it became evident that the Y
importation of Chinese threatened the
welfare OF the country, the Chinese gov
ernment agreed that this country might
regulate the coming of such Chinese,
but not absolutely prohibit.
May it please your honors, there
mas already been enacted law provid-
ing for the expulsion of persons not law
tully entitled to remain in the United
States. 1t is hard to reconcile the title
with the construction put upon the Sec
tlon which takes away right already
conferred to remain in the country. The
lower court recognizes the right of these
people whom | represent to remain in
the United States and then takes it
away from them. Is it the intention of
the United States to revoke a treaty
already made with q friendly nation.
residence whom it has already decided
as having right to remain here The
Chlnese have right to remain here.
and according to the act they shall have
} right to remain here as long as thew
comply with the provisions of this act.
Jne other reason why the intention to
ieport the Chinese to China should not
le imputed to the trainers OF the act ia
because congress has no power in time
i peace to expel any or all friendly
liens who come here upon invitation
md have taken up residence"
Choate submitted that the exclusion
ct deprived his clients of their liberty
Vltnout due process of law. in
irect violation of the fifth
mendment of the constitution. to
he protection OF which they were nm
uestionably entitled; and further, by
ne sixth section of the act, the ap-
ellants were deprived of their property
'lthout due process of law, and it was
herefore unconstitutional.
Other points made by Choate in oppo-
tion to the validity of the law were:
he third article of the constitution il
early violated in three respects by the
xth section of the act first, in that it
Ltempts to vest executive power in "a
nlted States Judge" whereas judicial
over is to be vested only in the courts
the United States second, 80 far as it
'niers Judicial power, it attempts to
'nfer 1t upon an individual Judge of no
artIcular court and not in any court,
Id also IN collector, an executive Of
;er, and third, because the third arti-
Q provides that judicial power shall
'tend to cases, and that to be brought
the act before United States Judge
not ease" The section of the act
lder discussion is in effect bill of at
lnder and unconstitutional as viola
IN OF subdivision 3, section 8, article f
the constitution, and finally that
wer sometimes called police regula-
ms does not reside in congress.
MR.. ALDEIcH's CONTENTIOUS.
solicitor-General Aldrieh argued in IA
or the constitutionaIity Of the Geary