The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-05-11
THE VALIDITY OF oEARY LAW.
Counsel for Defense Claims That the
Act Is Unconstitutional.
r he Government Sets Up the Right OF
the United States to Control Aliens.
and Claims That Congress Has Police
Power.


peal from the judgment of the United
States circuit court for the Southern dis
trict of New York, attracted q crowd that
more than exhausted the limited accom-
modations OF the court room. The visit
ors included many prominent members of
the bar and large number of ladies. The
argument was opened by Joseph II.
Choate, of New York, for writ of habeas
corpus for the petitioners, Fong Yue Ling,
Wong Quan and Lee Joe. Choate said:
He believed it was not permissible for
counsel TO seek to impress upon this
court the importance and magnitude OF the
question involved In the cases submitted for its
adjudication. nevertheless, no said, he would
20 far tYansgress the rule to state broadly the
two questions at issue. They were:
First-Shall 10000 unoffending, helpless resi-
dents OF this country. under the authority OF an
act OF congress and without review by its courts,
be transported TO the seashore aud then deported
to their native country?
Second-In case the emperor of China shall
tomorrow feel inclined to follow TIE example OF
this great enlightened country and expel from
his domain Americans residing therein. ehail
the voice of this people. either through the gov
srnment. its press or by individuais' be pre-
vented from uttering single protest
Choate prefaced his argument with a state
ment of facts in the three cases. which he said
differed chiefly in being initiated at various
stages of the operation OF the law.
1t appeared from this that Lee Joes case pre-
sented, in addition to the questions involved in
the Others, the consitutionalityo of the provision
of the exclusion act requiring the Chinese to
present white witnesses in support of their
right to receive certificates. After a resume of
the provisions OF the treaty and the legislative
history OF the relations of the United States and
China, Choate said:
The act OF May 5, 1892 was passed In accord
ance with desire to keep out more Chinese
from this country. The sixth section il wholly
distinct from and unlike the other sections.
The first five sections follow the provisions OF
the treaty of 1880 and the provisions OF the
Burlingame treaty. It decided that when in
the opinion OF the United States government it
became evident that the importation Of Chinese
threatened the welfare of the country. the
Chinese governments agreed that the country
might regulate the coming in OF such Chinese,
but may not absolutely prohibit it. May
1t please your honors, there has already been
enacted law providing for the expulsion of
persons not lawfully entitled to remain in the
United States 1t 10 hard to reconcile the title
with tho construction put upon the section
which takes away the right already conferred TO
remain In the country. Tho lower court recog.
nixes the right of these people whom repre-
sent to remain in the United States and then
takes 1t away from them. 1t 10 the intention OF
made with q friendly nation and thus deprive
thousands of people Of their residence. whom It
has already decided - having right TO remain
here. The Chinese have . right to remain here
and according to the act they shall have the
right to remain here - long as they comply with
the provisions OF this act One other reason
why the intention of deporting the Chinese to
China should not be imputed to the trainers OF
the act is because congress has no power in time
of peace to expcl any or all friendly aliens who
come here upon invitations and have taken up
their residence.
Choate submitted that the exclusion act
deprived his clients of their liberty with
out due process of law in direct violation
of the fifth amendment to the constitution,
to the protection of which they were un.
questionably entitled, and, further, by the
sixth section of the act the appellants
were deprived of their property without
due process of law and it was. therefore,
unconstitutional. The other points made
by Choate in opposition to the validity of
the law were:
The third article of the constitution 10 clearly
violated in three respects by the sixth section Of
the act:
'First-Iu that it attempts to vest executive
power in a United States judge, whereas the
judicial power is to be vested only in the courts
of tho United States.
Second-That in 50 far as it confers judicial
power it attempts to confer 1t upon an individ-
ual judge of no particular court and not In any
court and also in the collector OF customs, an
executive officer.
Third-Because the third article provides that
Judicial power shall extend to cases, and what
to be brought by the act before the United
States judge 10 not q ''case." The section OF the
act under discussion is In effect bill of at
tainder aDdi a unconstitutional a yioI siou of
subdivision of section 9, article 3, OF the con-
stitution, and finally that the power sometimes
called police regulation does not reside in con-
gress.
Solicitor General Aldrich argued in favor
of the constitutionality of the Geary law,
which, he said, had not been made for the
purpose Of the deportation Of Chinese
laborers as the counsel fo- the petitioners
erroneously claimed, but to provide sys-
TEN of Identification and registration for
such as were here, and continued:
This is a lawful purpose whether applied to
citizens Aliens in the face Of the right OF the
government to require identification and regis
tration OF Its citizens. their possessions, 70.
sources and locations which was never seriously
disputed. Tho means by which identifca-
ton is attained are lawful and reason
able and humane N their provisions.
to require aliens or citizens to register or to
obtain certificates Of Identification: the power
of congress TO authorize q judge without the
Intervention OF jury TO sentence to deporta-
ton . person who has no. procured and IL not
in possession OF the prescribed certificate; that
the "nation has q right, according to interna-
tional law. to prescribs terms upon which the
citizens or subjects OF other nations shall be
admitted TO its territory, to forbid such admis.
sion. or. having admitted such citizens aud su D.
jects, to regulate and limit their residence
therein. aud whenever 1t chooses to do so, sus-
pend such residence altogether and require
they shall depart its territory" that
the United States is nation
tions in the exercise Of the or.
dnary and necessary means OF self-prsserva-
ton. From this it follows that there Is police
power o; the United States which extends to
aad embraces all subjects confded 70 the gen.
eral government, and against the exercise of
which the Chinese alien resident Is therefore
no, entitled to invoke the guarantees Of the con-
stitution of the United states designed for the
protection of is citizens aud the citizens OF the
several states.
In conclusion. the solicitor general
said
Assuming that the maxim OF safety of sbe pso-
pie in the supreme law. then the police power in
relation to every subj ecs OF danger must, under
our system, rest either in the states the United
States or the people. If 1t is assumed
that Chinese alien labor il public
danger. threatening the safety OF the
psepis. then the power 70 cops with II