The morning call., 1893-05-16

and upon such conditions al IL may see ft
to prescribe, and that Congress has the
power to put the final determination of
the right to land into the hands of any
person IL chose and TO make such rules as
it saw fit regarding the testimony to be
taken as TO whether or not persons came
within the scope OF the act"
In the Chinese exclusion act case Justice
Gray quoted Justice Fields own decision
against himself, anticipating the dissent
OF the California Justice. Chae Chang
Ping was a Chinese laborer who left the
United States armed with certificate en-
titing him to return. On his return he
found that by supplementary Chinese
act his certificate had been annulled and
MS right TO land abroga,ed. Justice Gray
quoted Justice Fields opinion unfolding
the constitutionality Of the act, and say
ing: "The act is in direct contraven ton
OF treaty stipulatIons, but treaties are of
no greater legal obligation than acts of
Congress. Both are the paramount law of
the land, and treaties may be repealed or
modified at the pleasure of Congress. In
either case the last expression of the SOW
ereign will must govern"
Continuing his statement Justice GRAY
said, 1t Is perfectly well settled as one of
the fundamental principles of the law Of
nations that every Independent nation has
the inherent right, as essential to its pro-
lection. to keep aliens out of Its territory.
and to order them out OF its territory
whenever the proper department of the
Government charged with that power
thinks the public welfare demands 1t.
This power, though often exercised only
in time of war exists equally in time of
peace. and has always been recognized as
belonging TO Independent nations. The
United States is the only American nation
that is known to foreign countries. All
the international powers are vested in the
United States. The power to make war
and peace, the power to make treaties, the
power TO pass acts of naturalization anu
the power in Congress to pass all neces-
sary and proper laws to carry out the
powers vested in IL or in any department
or officer of the Government-this inter-
national power was essentially power
belonging TO the political and executive
departments. Though the courts aud es-
peclally the Supreme Court are vested with
the power OF sitting under written con-
stitution to judge whether any branch of
the Government has exceeded those
powers. 1t is obvious that the court ought
10 be very careful that it does not under
take TO judge for itself questions that are
committed and confded exclusively TO the
other departments.
Now, then, il has been settled in the two
cases cited that the power of excluding
and Of preventing entanc CO of aliens il ab-
solute and may be exercised through the
executive officers without trial of any sort
Congress. If it sees fit, may call In the aid
OF the judiciary whenever it sees a power
proper TO be passed on iudically. but il
may exercise It's powers exclusively
throught the executive. 1t is no new
thing that case like the present may take
the form of a judicial matter in such way
as the political department may direct. The
person may be surrendered according to
such form as the treaties aud statutes OF
the United States provide. He may, as
In the Robbins case in our early history,
be surrendered by the action Of the chief
executive, the court only acting to carry
out The political directions. La other
cases 1t has been decided that commission
ers shall sit TO pass on a persons right TO
be within The United States and 10 come
here. The courts have no right to revise
the decision Of the officers entrusted with
this power on the question Of fact, except
so fara provision has been made by treaties
OF by the law. The treaties with China pro-
vided originally for very free intercourse
and free authority 10 appeal TO the courts
OF each country by citizens OF tile other.
Neither had the right to be naturalizsd
as citizens OF the other country.
Then it was found necessary to have
oh 81
cognized by the contracting parties the
power OF regulating The residence Of Chin
ese in this country. BIT the question here
is not whether the legislation before US is
consistent with the treaty. II is especially
we'll settled by n uniform series OF decisions
tnat in the judicial tribunals of the United
States the last enactment Of the law max
ing power will rule, though It may be in
consistent with something the Senate and
th President in their treaty max ing power
have done, aud though it may give the
foreign nation dealing with the national
Government the right of complaint, or
though 1t may as result OF that act take
such action as it may think for its own
interest However that may be. il the
letter Of the statute is clear and explicit
the courts of the United States must recor-
nlze the letter OF that later statute. Now
what is the cIse here? There are num-
Der OF persons declared entitled 10 remain
in the United States in contradistnction
to those not entitled to remain. This is
done by permission and suferance Of the
United States. They have no absolute
right to remain. They are like all aliens
subject to the decision of the political
department OF the Government rs to wheth-
er the public welfare requires that they be
permitted to remain or rquires that they be
forbidden TO remain. What does this act
sayP 1t says that every person of the
described class shall within year annIy