Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1893-05-16
THE LAW STANDS.
The Geary Chinese Exclusion
and Registration Act
Declared Constitutional by the
U. S. Supreme Court.
Motion ios Rs.hearins Of Case Made BY
Counsel and Denied.

| WAsnISeroN. NAV I5.--The supreme
court of the United States today affirmed
the constitutionality of the Geary Chinese
exclusion and registration act. The opin-
ion is announced by Justice Gray, Justice
Brewer, dissenting.
Justice GRAY in announcing the decision
of the court, said the power of this nation
| to restrict or prohibit immigration of aliens
| into the country, or to require such aliens
alleady in the country to remove therefrom
was we'll settled principle of international
law, confirmed by an unbroken line of de-
cisions in this court.
| The legislative power of the government,
had not transcribed any of its constitu-
tional limitations in the act under consider
Btion. 1t is within its power to determine
the regulations under which aliens shall be
permitted to remain in the United States,
or failing to observe these regulations,
should be required to leave the country.
The provisions of section 6 of the act,
which are the part of the law particularly
at issue. are not inconsistent with the
relations and duties of the legislative and
judicial departments of the government.
As to the requirements that the Chinese
entitled to remain in this country should
establish right by the evidence of one
credible white witness, Justice Gray said il
was within the power of the legislature to
determine the character of evidence which
might be received in a case at law and what
force shall be given the testimony so of
fered,
Justice Brewer declared that in substance
the act of 1892 was unconstitutional, if il
upheld no guarantee that similar treatment
ivbf nt h, arrnrNnI .,tbar cl pf
population than Chinese.
Justice Field also read dissenting opin-
ion. He held that there was a wide differ
ence between the exclusion of immigrants
and the deportation of alien residents and
characterized the act in the strongest Ian
guage as inhuman and brutal; as violative
of the constitution in every section. He
regretted to say that the decision of the
court to his mind was fraught with the
gravest dangers to the priceless constitu
tional liberties of the people.
Chief Justice Fuller also dissented from
the opinion of the court.
The chief justice denied the soundness
of the proposition that the cases before the
court were such as the political department
of the government alone could deal with.
1t was, in his view judicial question, the
very essence of judicial duty for the courts
to pass upon the constitutionality of
legislative acts when the discharge of that
duty was properly imposed upon it. He
entertained no doubt that the provisions of
the fifth and fourteenth amendments were
universal in their application. while the
general government was invested so far as
countries were concerned, with all
the powers necessary to the maintenance
of its absolute independence and secur-
iiy and could not in virtue of the supposed
inherent sovereignty absolutely deal with
persons lawfully and peacefully within its
domain. The act before the court was not
an act to abrogate or repeal a treaty, nor
expel Chinnamen lawfully here,
and no such intent could be
imputed to Congress. Its object was
to prescribe method of registration, and
deportation by way of punishment was, in
his view, an unusual punishment not
authorized by the constitution.
After the court concluded the announce
ment of opinions, J. Hupley Ashton of the
counsel for the Chinese, moved for re-
hearing of the case and argument before
the court stands ) to 3 in support of the
law, Justice Harlan being absent.
The court took the motion under advise
ment, the effect of which is to postpone,
until the motion is acted upon, any pro-
ceedings uuder the Judgment of the court
announced today.
The court took a short recess, and on re-
assembling denied Mr.. Ashtons motion for
rehearing The opinion stands as
announced.