Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1893-05-18
THE GEARY LAW.
Sustained by the United States
Supreme Court.
JUSTICE CRAY GIVES The DECISION.
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Brewer
and Field DIssent-A Motion For
. Rehearing Postpones
Execution.

court, through Justice Gray, has sus-
tanned the decision Of the New York
courts in favor Of the constitutionality
OF the Geary exclusion act.
Justice Gray, in announcing the
judgment of the court, said that the
power of the nation TO restrict or pro-
hibit the immigration of any aliens
into the country or to require such
aliens already In the country TO remove
therefrom was well settled principle
Of international law and II was con.
firmed by an unbrolSen line of decisions
in this court The Legislative power Of
the government had not transcribed
any Of its constitutional limitations in
the act under consideration. 1t was
within its power TO determine the reg
ulations under which these aliens
should be permitted TO remain in the
United States or failing TO observe
these regulations, they should be re-
quired TO leave the country.
The provisions of section OF the act
the judge said, which were the part of
the law particularly ut issue, We're not
inconsistent with the duties of the
Legislative and judicial departments of
the government. The mode of pro-
cedure set forth In the section, the
judge held, was similar to that in other
well established proceedings, such as
the habeas corpus and naturalization,
fixing the requirements of citizenship
and the like in which the judicial
i'-anch of the government accepted
&C determination Of the executive
upon the questions involved. AS
10 the requirements that the Chi
nese entitled to remain in this country
should establish that right by the evil
dence of one credible witness it was
within the power of the Legislature to
determine the character of the evidence
that might be received in case at law
and what force should be given to the
testimony offered. Not discussing the
wisdom or the justice of the act in
question, which was beyond the
province of the judicial branch Of the
government, IL remained only to say
that the Judgment of the circuit court
for the southern district of New York
in refusing to grant writs of habeas
corpus TO the several petitioners was
affirmed.
Justice Gray stated that IL had been
impossible in the brief time elapsing
since the hearing Of the argument upon
the petitions to prepare in writing the
opinion of the court. II would be filed
as soon as 1t was possible.
At the conclusion of Justice Gray's
opinion Justice brewer announced that
he felt compelled to dissent from the
view Of the majority Of the court. lie
read his views at some length, declar-
ing in substance that the act of 1892
was unconstitutional and that II IL
were upheld there was no guarantee
that similar treatment might not be
accorded To other classes of the popula-
tion than the Chinese.
Justice Field. who delivered the Opin-
ion Of the supreme court in the first
case under the exclusion act, also read
dissenting opinion. lie held that
there was a wide difference between
exclusion Of immigrants and the deport-
alton of alien residents nnd he char
acterized the act in the strongest Ian
guagc as inhuman and violative of the
constitution in every section. lie re-
GREETED to say THAI the decision of the
court was, to his mind, fraught with
the gravest dangers to the priceless
constitutional liberties of the people.
Chief Justice Fuller also dissented
from the opinion of the court.
After the court had completed the
announcements of the opinions, J. H..
Ashton, of counsel for the Chinese,
moved for rehearing of the case and
an argument before full bench at the
next term. At present the court stands
D TO 3 in support of the law, Justice
Harlan being absent. The court took
the motion under advisenent, the effect
of which Is to postpone until the mo-
ton is acted upon, any proce cdings UNI
der the Judgment of the court an
nounced to-day.
In his dissenting opinion the chief
justice denied the soundness of the
proposition that the cases before the
court were such as the political depart
ment of the government alone could
deal with. 1t was, in his view, a judi
cial question, and however reluctant
courts may be to pass upon the consti-
nationality of legislative acts, il was
the very essence of judicial duty to do
so when the discharge Of that duty was
properly imposed upon 1t. lie enter
tanned no doubt that the provisions of
of the fifth and fourteenth amendments
were universal in their application,
and that while the general govern
ment was invested, SO far as foreign
countries were concerned, with all the
powers necessary TO the maintenance
of its absolute independence and secur-
ity, II could not, in virtue of n supposed
inherent sovereignty, absolutely deal
with persons lawfully and peacefully
within its domain. The act before the
court was not an act 10 abrogate or re-
peal a treaty nor 10 eXpel Cinnamon
lawfully hereafter and no such intent
could he imputed TO congress. Its OBJ
ject was 10 prescribe a method Of regi.
tration and the deportation by way OF
punishment was, in his view an unusual
punishment, not authorized by the con.
stitution.
william E. Curtis Resigns.
WASHINGTON, May i6.-William L.
Curtis, director of the bureau of Ameri-