The herald., 1893-09-06

Dy witt OF habeae corpus into the illegal
restraint OF any person OF his liberty.
Such course 10 In no respect inconsist
eDt with the entire Independence OF the
judiciary. While, under our system OF
government, each OF the great depart
ments-the executive, judicial and iegis-
lative--is, within its proper sphere,
wholly independent of the other. yet the
design is that ell shall work in harmony,
and not At cross-purposes. The provis-
ion of the statute in question is not q
penal law it was so decided by the SUI
preme court in the case OF Fong Yue
Ting vs. United States GAO U. s., 698)
ite enactment was the exercise OF the po-
litical power by cole sTess to ex-
pei certain class OF aliens
from the country. which could
be exercised, as was decided in the
case cited, entirely through executive
officers, or through them with the aid nf
the judiciary. BY neither method could
the Objectionable persons be sent away
without money to defray the necessary
expenses of their deportation, and l
therefore repeat what was said when
awarding the warrant, that no Judge. in
my opinion, should order into custody
for deportation any Chinaman whom he
judicially knows cannot be deported by
the executive department. for want OF
the necessary means.
But the information conveyed to the
court through the attorney general is
not that there are no funds available for
the execution OF the Geary act, but that
There are no funde to execute the
the Geary law go far as the same pro-
videe for deportation OF the Cinnamon
who have not procured certificates OF
residence"
That portion of the Geary act requir-
ing such certificates to be procured Is
the sixth section, and its validity having
been sustained by the supreme court in
the case Of Fong Yue Ting vs.. the United
States, supra, it is as much part OF the
Geary law as any other part of it. Any
Chinese laborer violating its provisions
and thereafter remaining in this country
is as much unlawfully here as if he
smuggled himself into the country con-
trary to other provisions of the statute,
for the simple reason that in each case
the existing law makes the act unlawful.
The violator OF each is subject TO de-
portation. and equally so. No distinc-
ton can be legally made between the
offenders, and can eee no valid ground
Tor withholding q warrant for the arrest
OF any person properly charged with
violation of any OF the provisions of the
law in question, nor for denying an or.
der for the deportation OF any such per-
sons proved, upon q proper hearing, to
have violated the law, in the absence of
judicial knowledge that the department
OF the government charged with the duty
of executing it's provisions is not pro-
vided with the necessary funds with
which to execute such order.
That information, as has been said, is
not conveyed by the communication
from the attorney general. On the con-
trary, the clear inference to be drawn
from it is that there are funds available
for the execution of the Gesry law other
than its sixth section. The distinction
thus attempted to be drawn between the
different offenees denounced by the stat
ute is, in my judgment, without author
ity OF law. and my sense of duty obliges
me to disregard it.
Congress- made no such distinction in
making, as it did, an appropriation for
the enforcement OF the provisions OF the
Geary act in the act of August 5. 1892,
entitled "An act making appropriations
for sundry civil expenses of the govern
June 80, 1893, and for other pur-
poses," and in making similar appro-
priation for the same purpose in the
act of March 3, 1898, entitled, "An act
making appropriations for sundry
civil expenses OF the government for
the fiscal year ending June 80, 1894,
and for other purposes" The provi-
sion first referred TO is found in United
States Statutes-ata asafge, 1891 1893, page
365, and is as follows sjiue
Enforcemefft Of tEe Chinese exclusion
act !: To prevent unlawfui entry OF Chi
nese into the United States by the ap-
pointment Of suitable officers to enforce
the laws in relation thersto, and for ex-
penseH OF returning to China all Chi
nese PERSONS found to be unlawfully in
the United States, including the cost
of imprisonment and actual expense OF
conveyance of Chinese persons to the
frontier or seaboard for deportation,
and for enforcing the provisions of the
act approved May 5, 1892. entitled, "An
act to prohibit the coming of Chinese
persons into the United States"
$l00, 600.
And the appropriation for the fiscal
year ending June 80, 1894, is found in
the same volume, pages $50 and 500,
and is as follows:
Enforcement of the Chinese exclusion
act; To prevent unlawful entry OF
Chinese into the United States. by the
appointment of suitable officers to en-
force the laws in relation thereto, and
for expenses of returning to, China all
Chinese persons found to be unlawfully
in the United States, including the cost
of imprisonment and actual ex penees Of
conveyance of Chinese persons to the
frontier or seaboard for deportation, and
for enforcing the provisions OF the act
approved May 5, 1892. entitled "An act
to prohibit the coming of Chinese per-
sons into the United States," 500, 900 to-
gether with the unexpended balance of
the appropriation for this object for the
fiscal year 1893.
The evidence in the case showing that
the defendant is, and was at the time of
the passage of the Geary act, Chinese
laborer, residing in this state, and that
he failed to register in accordance with
the provisions of the sixth section of
that act, and no excuse therefore being
attempted to be shown, thers will be
findings accordingly, and an order that
he be deported. Ross,
District Judge.
Sec the Worlds Fatr for Fifteen Gents.
Upon receipt of your address and Is cents in
postage stamps, we will mail you, prepaid, our
souvenir Portfolio of the Worlds Columbian
Exposition. The regular price Is so cents but