Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-05-16
GEOGRAPHIC.
THE GEARY LAW.
Dissenting Opinions by justices Field,
Fuller and Brewer.
no MONEY FOR DEPORTATION.
Tie Chinese Receive the News OF the
Supreme Court Decision
Gcary's Joy.

WAsifiSGToN, May l0.-Jur'ice
Field delivered the principal dissenting
address. He says:
The power OF the government to ex.
clude foreigners from this country
that is prevent them from entiring IL
whenever public interests In Its JUG
ment require such exolusion-has been
repeatedly asserted by the legislative
department, but the deportation from
the country Of persons lawfully domi-
ciled therein by permission OF the
government engaged In the ordinary
pursuits OF life, has never been
asserted by the government since its
touniation, except In time OF war, IN
view OF existing or anticipating HOSTILE
ties, unless the act OF 1898 can be con-
adhered rs recognizing that doctrine
In no other instance until inc
law before us was passed has any pup
lie man had the boldness 10 advocate
toe department Of friendly aliens IN
time OF peace. 1 repeat the statement
that In no other instance has the de-
pertinent Of friendly aliens been advo-
Gated as lawful measure by any ue'
portment OF our government, anu u
Will surpriie most Of the people 10
l6nrn that any such dangerous anu
dspotic power lies In our government
vhich will authorise II to expel NJ
Dlegsure In times OF pence n whole
bDdy OF friendly foreigners OF any
country domiciled herein by its per-
olission.
ls it possible that Congress can at Its
PLEASURE expel ut any time the irish,
Herman, French and English people
who may have taken up their residence
here on tho invitation OF the govern
ment, In disregard Of the guarantees OF
legislation simply on the ground that
they have not been nnturalized? The
moment any human being comes
within the consent OF the government,
aud such consent will always DO I'm.
Piled " hen not expressly withheld, and
in the case OF the Chinese lsborers In
tho United States, II was given
by treaty, he Is subject 10 all
their laws ind nmcnable to their
punishment and entitled TO their pro.
lection. Arbitrary and dcspotic author
ity can no more be exercised over them
with reference to persons ana property
than over the persons anu property Of
native born citizens. Tho existence Of
power thus stated IL only con.
sistent with the admission that
tho government Ia one of un
limited and despotlc power 80 tar al
aliens domiciled In the country Ars
concerned. l utterly repudiate MI
such notions and reply that brutality,
inhumanity or cruelty arc not elc
ments In my procedure for the on
forcement OF laws In the Unitod States
The punishment IL beyond reason n
It's severity aud 1t IL out Of NIL proper
ton to the alleged ofienses. 1t Ii cfue
and unusual.
l utterly dissent from and reject tn,
doctrine and opinion OF the majority
that Congress might have directed any
Chinese laborer found within tn,
United States without certificate d
residence TO be removed out OF tn,
country without judicial trial o.
examination. cannot but regard tn,
decision NJ n blow against constitu
tional liberty when It declares tina
Congress has q right 10 disregard th,
guarantees OF the Constitution intende,
for the protection OF nil men domicile,
In the country with the consent Of tn,
government In their rights OF persoI
anu personality. am Of opinion tina
ths order OF the court below should Il
reversed and tho petitioners be dii
charged.
CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER
In dissenting from the opinion, dcnie,
the soundntss Of the proposition tina
the cases before the court were such a
the political department OF the govern
ment alone could deal with. II was
In his view, q judicial question, an,
However reluctant the c0urts may b
10 pass on the constitu tionality Of legis
latlve acts, II WINS the very essence Q
judicial duty 10 do no wheL the dii
Charge OF that duty was properly I'M
posed upon 1t. He entertained n
uoubt that the provisions Of the fiftl
and fourteenth amendments were uni
versa, In their application, and Will
the general government WAS invested
NO far rs foreign countries arc cor
oefned, with all the powers necessary
to the maintenance Of It's absolute In
dependence and security, II could not
In virtue OF supposed Inherent sovcl
eighty, absolutely deal with person
lawfully anu peacefully within II
domain. The punishment was, In hi
view, unusual-a punishment not ~
thorized by the Constitution.
\ JUDGE BREWER
notified the court that he would pre-
pare an extended written opinion O.
Me subject which would be- filed 1
the records Of the case. He said tn
fourteenth amendment could not b
continued ~ being entirely confined I
bfrnction Of citizens OF tho Unite
sla.ea Tho provisions applied TO al
people living In the Jurisdiction of tn
United States. He defined the mean
ing 81 Tho use Of the word "personal
IN the NTH amendment. In his opiu
ION .nero. was no question regardin
me general power OF the government
70 enact laws keeping people out OF tn
onited states or to summarily des
win persons who unlawfully came IL
However, this act dealt with person
who were lawfully In the Unite
states. IL Ia not possible that any la,
can DO put Into effect that shall TAX
property from people within our bol
ders for which compens, .inn is nc
given. IL Is but fair 10 say ast depot
tation Ia punishment. 1t 10 a depriys
ton OF liberty AMI removal from nom,
family, business and property. Til
can DO considered nothing less thu
punishment OF the severest nature,
Justice Brewer held that II q ma
had been born, brought up, and ettat
lIshsd here, no can be- seized an
driven from the country under Ia
provisions OF the Gea.. act. He in
sisted that the powers conferred o
collectors were surely not such as
constitute due process OF law.