Morning journal and courier., 1893-05-16
NEWS BY TELEGRAPH.
 From All Quarters. GEARY ACT CONFIRMED. Decision given By the United States Supreme Court. DIABL0 WON THE BIG HANDICAP. He Was Not Cheered When
 He Passed the Wire.
ALMY IS IN EXCELLENT SPIRITS,
He Will Make no Speech
 on the ScaffOld.
ACT UPHELD.

SGAlcB AHEn1S tM0 ofthe Geary Law-Three ofthe Jus. rices Dissented from the Opinion. WASHINGTON, May 1.-The supreme the constitutionality of the Geary Chinese exclusion and registration act. The opin- ion was announced by Justice Gray, Jus tice Brewer dissenting. The announce ment that decision in the case was ex- pected attracted 8 large attendance of spectators, and the fact that 1t was the last day of the term accounted for the presence of an unusually large array of attorneys within the bar.
 Justice Gray, in announcing the judg- ment of the court, said that the power of this nation to restrict or prohibit the i'm migration of any aliens into the country or to require such aliens already in the country to remove therefrom was a we'll settled principal of international law and was confirmed by an unbroken line of de- cisions in this court. The legislative power of the government had not tran scended auy of it's constitutional limits- tions in the act under consideration. It was within its power to determine the reg ulstions under which these aliens should be permitted to remain in the United States, or failing to observe these regula tions 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 re- lations and duties of the legislative and judicial departments of the government. Tho pnoHo of nrooa11ro fnrfh fp tho section Is similar to that in other we'll established proceedings, such as the habeas corpus and naturalization, fixing the re- quirements of citizenship and the like, in which the judicial branch of the govern m4nt accepted the determination of the executive upon the question involved. As to the requirements that the Chinese entitled to remain in this country should establish that right by the evidence of one credible white witness, Justice Gray said that 1t was within the power of the legislature to determine the character of the evidence that might be received in 8 case of law and what force should be given to the testimony so offered. Not discuss ing the wisdom nor the justice of the act in question, which was beyond the prov ince of the judicial branch of the govern ment, 1t remained only to say that the judgment of the circuit court of the south ern district of New York in refusing to grant writs of habeas corpus to the several petitioners was affirmed.
 MT. Justice Gray stated that 1t had been impossible in the brief time elapsing since the hearing of the argument upon the peti tions to prepare in writing the opinion of the court, it would be filed as soon as 1t was possible.
 Justice Brewer announced 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 guar antee that similar treatment might not be accorded to other classes of our population 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 a dissenting opinion. He held that there was 8 wide difference between exclusion of immigrants and the deporta- tion of alien residents, and he character ized the act in the strongest language as inhuman and brutal; and as violative of the constitution in every section. He re- gretted to say that the decision of the court was to his mind fraught with the gravest dangers to the priceless constitutional liberties of the people.
 Chief Justice Fuller also dissented from the opinion of the ,urt
 In this dissenting opinion the chief jus tice denied the soundness of the proposi tion that the cases before the court were such as the political department alone could deal with. It was, in his view, 8 judicial question, and however I reluctant courts may be to pass | upon the constitutionality of the legislative acts 1t WAS the very essence of judicial duty to do so when the discharge of that duty was properly i'm | pased upon it. He entertained no doubt that ths provisions of the fifth and four teenth amendments were universal in
 their application and that while the gen. eral government was invested so far as
 foreign countries were concerned with all | of its absolute independence and security,
 it could not in virtue of supposed inher-
 ent sover. ignty absolutely deal with per
 sons lawfully and peacefully within its domain.
 After the court had concluded announce
 ment of opinions, MT. J.Hubley Ashton of
 counsel for the Chinese moved for a re-
 hearing of the case and argument before g
 full bench at the next term. At present
 the court stands five to three in support oi
 the law, Justice Harlan being absent.
 The act before the court was not an act
 to abrogate or repeal treaty nor to expe
 Chinamen lawfully here, and no intent
 could be imputed to congress. Its obj jecI
 was to prescribe 8 method of registration
 and the deportation by way of punishment
 was in his view and unusual punishment | not authorized by the constitution.
 The court denied MT. Ashton's motion
 for & re-hearing. The opinion, therefore ! stands as announced.