Huntsville gazette., 1893-05-20
THE CHINESE MUST GO.
The Constitutionality Of the Gearv
Law Affirmed
by the Supreme Court of the United
States-The Opinion Delivered by
Justice Gray-It Was Not
Unanimous.

WASHINGTON. May 16.-The supreme
court of the United States has affirmed
the constitutionality of the Geary Chi
nese exclusion and registration act.
The opinion was announced by Justice
Gray, Justice Brewer dissenting
The announcement that decision in
the case was expected attracted large
attendance of spectators. and the
fact that it was the last day
of the term accounted for the
presence of an unusually large array
of attorneys within the bar, including
Attorney-General Olney, Solicitor-Gen-
eral Adrich, Senators Pugh, Dolph and
Cockrell. Ex-Justice Strong and sew
eral members of the diplomatic corps
were interested spectators.
| Justice Gray said in announcing the
Judgment of the court that the power
of this nation to restrict or prohibit
the immigration of any aliens into the
country or to require such aliens already
in the country to remove herefrom, was a
well-settled principle of international
law, and was confirmed by an unbroken
line of decisions in this court. The
legislative power of the government
had not transcribed any of its consti-
| tutional limitations in the act under
consideration. Itwas within its power
| to determine the regulations under
which these aliens should be permitted
to remain in the United States, or, fail
ing to observe these regulations, they
should be required to leave the
country.
Justice Gray said that the question
presented was the constitutionality and
effect of the sixth section of the act of
May 6, 1892, entitled an act to prohibit
the coming of Chinese persons into the
United States.
After continuing in force the former
exclusion laws and providing modes for
trial, convictions, removals, ETC., of the
Chinese persons not lawfully entitled to
be in the United States under these
laws, it proceeds to deal with the ques-
ton of Chinese laborers within the
United States.
The justice slzetched the provisions
OF the law rapidly, and proceeded to say
that the principles of public law in
| volved had already been the subject of
! two recent decisions in the supreme
! court of the United States. 1t was
| perfectly well settled it was one of the
fundamental principles of the law of
nations that every independent nation
had the inherent right to keep aliens
out of its territory and to or
der them to get out of its ter
ritory. That power public welfare
demanded. That power exists in time
of war and equally so in time of peace,
| and has always been recognized as be-
longing to independent nations. The
United States-all of the great powers
has the power to make war; to make
peace; to pass acts of naturalization; to
pass all necessary and proper laws to
carry out the powers reposed in con-
gress. On the diplomatic department
of the government devolved the case of
international relations.
1t had been settled in two cases that
the power of exclusion may be vested
in executive officers, and the aid of the
judiciary might be invoked. 1t was no
new thing in public law for matters to
be executive and political in the first
instance and then take judicial force
as the political department might di-
rect. The courts have no authority to
revise the decisions or the action and
effect in these cases except as far as
publication has been by law. The
treaties with China prohibited
originally any very free inter
course. That was in 1869. Then it
was found that it was necessary to
have more power for the convenient
regulation of this matter, and the sub
seouent treaties that distinctly recog-
nized, as contemplated by the contract
ing parties, the power to regulate the
the entrance of Chinese into this coun-
trv. If congress makes law inconsis-
tent with treaty it may give foreign
nation the right to complain and take
such action as it may deem for its own
interest, but the duty of the courts OF
the United States is clear, and they
must recognize its force.
Justice Gray dwelt at length upon
the objection that had been made to
arbitrary power conferred upon the
executive officers in making deporta-
tions He said that so far as an 1nves-
tigation goes it will be a judicial inves-
tigation. The statutes provided that
the Chinaman shall be deported un-
less he shall clearly establish GER
tain facts to the satisfaction
Of the judge. The legislature
had right to prescribe what evidence
shall be demanded before its judicial
tribunals. 1t was within its power to
provide that those aliens who have
been anywhere in the United States
without getting out certificate should
be deported. 1t had the right to define
what witnesses should be heard;
right to protect the courts against tes-
timony from persons who had no re-
gard for the sanctity of an oath.
He would not touch upon the wis
DOM the policy, even the justice OF the
act. Those questions were for the po-
litical. the legislative and executive
denartnents Of the country, If the act