The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-06-13
Continued from Ist Paqe.)


red upon executive officers in max
ing. the deportation. He said that
SO far as investigation is made it will
be a judicial investigation. The law
provided that no Chinaman should
be deported if he should clearly es-
tablish certain facts to the satisfac-
ton of Judge. The Legislature had
right to prescribe what evidence
may be demanded before our judicial
tribunals, and it was within its power
to provide that those aliens who
have been one year within the United
States without getting out certifi-
Gates should be deported. 1t had
right to define what witnesses should
be heard, and the right to protect
its courts against testimony from
persons who had no regard for the
sanctity of an oath, He would not
touch upon the wisdom, the policy,
or even the justice of the act. Those
questions were for the political,
Legislative and executive depart
ments of the Government. If the
act we're within their constitutional
powers it would be out of place for
this court to interfere. What Con-
gress had done had not been to pro-
vide for any definition of crime in
the act, nor to provide any punish
ment. 1t had provided merely that
the persons in question should be
sent out of the country to the place
whence they came; it had provided,
not for the adjudication of crime,
but simply for the removal of per-
sons whose presence Congress con-
siders inconsistent with the public
welfare. 1t must be remembered
that the Chinese cannot be natural
lied. Doubtless they are entitled
to the security and safeguard guran-
teed by the constitution and laws in
such measure as they are provided,
but there was nothing in the consti-
tuition or the laws which impugned
the power of Congress to compel
them to leave the country.
The opinion of the United States
Circuit Court for the Second Dis
trict of New York in each Of the
three cases is therefore affirmed, and
the three Chinese are ordered to be
deported.
After the court concluded the
announcement of its opinion, Ashton,
of counsel for the Chinese, moved
rehearing and argument before a
full bench at the next term.
At present the court stands 5 to 3
in support of the law, Justice Har-
Ian being absent.
The court took the motion under
advisement, the effect of which is to
postpone the proceedings under the
judgment.
In the Chinese exclusion act case
Justice Gray quoted Justice Fields
own decision against himself, antici-
pating the dissent of the California
Justice. Chae Chang Ping was a
Chinese laborer who left the United
States armed with certificate en-
titling him to return. On his re-
turn he found that by a supplement
tary Chinese act his certificate had
been annulled and his right to land
abrogated. Justice Gray quoted
Justice Fields opinion upholding
the constitutionality of the act, and
saying: "The act is in direct con-
travention 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 Con-
gress. In either case the last ex-
preston of the sovereign will must
govern"
Justice Fuller, in his dissenting
opinion, held that Congress has no
power to prescribe Punishment.
Justice Field, whose previous de-
cision was quoted by Justice Gray,
argued in dissenting now that arbi-
trary and tyrannical power had no
place in the American system. He
said:
brutality, inhumanity and cruelty
can never be recognized as elements
in any form of procedure adopted in
the administration of the laws of
our Government AS l had once oc-
casion to say against the cruel treat
ment of poor and despised China
men, repeat now: It is certainly
something in which a citizen of the
United States may feel a generous
pride that the Government of his
country extends protection to all
persons within its jurisdiction, and
that every blow aimed at any of
them, however humble, come from
what quarter it may, is caught upon
the broad shield of our blessed con-
stitution and our equal laws"
Justice Brewer gave a verbal opin-
ion, promising written one later.
He said that the fourteenth amend
ment could not be construed as be-
ing entirely confined to the protec-
ton of citizens of the United States.
Its provisions applied to all the peo-
pie living in the jurisdiction of the
United States. He defined the mean
ing of the use of the word "persons"
in the fifth amendment, which, he
said, must be equally comprehen-
sive. So also must be the sixth
amendment.
In his opinion there was no ques-
ton regarding the general power of
the Government to enact laws keep
ing people out Of the United States
or to summarily deal with persons
who unlawfully came in. However,