The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-05-16
Six Millions Required to Send Back Chi
nese Who Have Failed to Register,
And Only q Few Thousands Available for the
PurpOse-Ne Visible Excitement Among
the Prescribed Aliens at San Francisco.


fionaIity of the Geary Excinsion Act
WASHINGTON. May 15.-Tbe Supreme
Court of the United States to-day affirmed
the constitutionality of the Geary Chinese
exclusion and registration act. The opin-
ion was announced Dy Associate Justice
Gray. Chief Justice Fuller and Associate
Justices Brewer and Field dissenting. The
announcement that a decision In the case
was expected attracted q large attendance.
and the fact that il was the last day of the
term accounted for the presence of an I'M
usually large array of attorneys within the
bar. including Attorney general Olney and
soIicItor-generaI Aldricb. Senators Pugh.
Dolph and Cockrell. ex-Justice Strong and
several members of the diplomatic corps,
were interested spectators.
Justice Gray. IN announcing the judg-
ment of the court. said that the question
presented was the constitutIonality and
effect of the sixth section of the act en-
titled IAN act to prohibit the coming of
Chinese persons into the United States"
The Justice sketched the provisions of
the law rapidly, and then proceeded
TO say that 1t was perfectly we'll settled
IL was one of the fundamental principles
of the law of n~atIons-that every inde-
pendent nation had the inherent right to
keep aliens out of its territory. That
power public welfare demanded. That
power exists in time of war. and equally
in time of peace. and has always been
recognized as belonging to independent
nations. The United States-all of the
great powers-have the power TO make
war. to make peace. to pass acts of nat
---1.--.- III aud
proper laws to carry out the powers re-
posed in Con gress. On the political de-
psrtment OF the government deyolved the
care of international relations. 1t had
been settled in two cases that the power OF
exclusion may be vested In executive OIL
GERS. and the aid of the Judiciary might be
invoked 1t was no new thing IN public
law for matters TO be executive and polit-
teal in the FIRST instance. and then take
judicial force as the political department.
ity to revise the decisions or the q action
aud effect in these cases. except so far as
provision has been made by law:
The treaties with China provided origi-
naily for very free ntercourse-that was
n 1869. Then 1t was found that it wasnec-
essary TO have moro power for the conven-
lent regulation of this matter and the sub
sequent treaties more distinctly recognized.
as contemplated By the contracting par
ties. the power 10 regulate the entrance of
Chinese into this country. If Congress
makes a law inconsistent with q treaty it
may give q foreign nation the right TO COM
plain and TO take such action as lt may
deem best for its own interest. but the duty
of the courts OF the United States is clear
aud they must recognize its force.
ALIENS CAN BE PORTE
Justice Gray here dweIt at length upon
She objection that had been made 70 the
arbitrary power conferred uDon executive
officers in making depertations. He said
shat so far as an Investigation is made 1t
will be o judicial Investigation. The law
provided that the Chipaman shall be de-
ported unless he shall clearly establish Ger.
tain facts to the satisfaction of
the judge. The legislature had a
shall be demanded before It's judicial
tribunals IL was within its power to pro-
vide that those aliens who have been a
year within the United States without
ported. It had the right to define what
witnesses should be heard; o right TO pro-
fect the courts against testimony from per-
sons who had no regard for the ssnctity OF
an oath. He would not touch upon the
wisdom OF the policy. even the justice of
the act. Those questions were for the po-
litical. the legislative and executive de-
oartments Of the government If the act
were within their constitutional powers.
and it would be out OF place for the court
90 interfere. What Congress had done had
not been TO provide for any definition of
crime in the act. nor TO provide any pun
ishment lie provided that the persons in
question should be sent out OF the
country TO the place from whence
thsy came. lie provided. not for the
ad Indication OF crime, but simply for the
removal OF persons whose presence Con-
grcss considers inconsistent with the pub
lie welfare. lt must to remembered that
Chinese cannot be natnralIzed. Doubtless
they are entitled TO the securities and safe
guard granted by the Constitution and
Ia W in such measure "a they provide. but
there was nothing IN the Constitution OF
Ia VS. which imDugned the power of Con-
Rress to compel them To leave the country.
1t remained only TO say that the Judgment
OF the Circuit Court for the Southern dis
trict of New York. in refusing 10 grant
writs OF habeas corpus TO the several Pc
TONERS. was affirmed. Mr.. Justice Gray
stated that 10 had been impossible in the
brief time elapsing since the hearing of the
argument upon the petitions TO prepare in
Whiting the opinion Of the court, but it
would DO filed az soon as possible.
THE OPINIONS.
At the conclusion Of Justice Grsy's opin-
ion Justice Brewer announced that he felt
compelled TO dissent from tho 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 IL il was upheld there was no
guarantee that similar treatment mightnot
be accorded TO other classes of oar popula-
tion than the Chinese.
Justice Field. who delivered the opinion
OF the Supreme Court Of the United States
IN the first case under the exclusion act.
also read q dissenting opinion. He held
that Ihere was N wide difference between
exclusion of immigrants and the deporta-
tlOn of alien residents. and he character
lied the act In the strongest language as
inhuInan and brutal. and as violating the
CONSTITUTION Ia every section. he regret
led to say that the decision of the court
was TO bis mind fraught with the grayest
dangers 10 the priceless constitutional lib
erties of the people.
In his dissenting opinion the Chief JUS
lice denied the s~oundness of the PROPOSE
lion that the cases before the court were
bach as the political department. of the
Eovernment alone could deal with. IL
has. IN mis- view. . judicial question and
bowever reluctant courts may be TO pass
spon the constitutionaIity of legislative
lets 10 was the very essence of judicial
duty tO Go 20 when the discharge of that
duty was properly imposed 1Don it. He
entertained no doubt that the provisions
OF the fifth and fourteenth ~amendments
were universal IN their application, and
thar while the general government was IN
vested. 80 far as foreign countries were
\ concerned. with all the powers necessary
60 the maintenance of Its absolute inde-
Dendence and security. ~ could not. IN yir-