New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-05-16

In affirming the consttutionality OF the So
called Geary Exclusion act the Supreme Court
again demonstrates the fact that il understands
and respects the limits of its own jurisdiction
and authority. This has always been character
istic of the Court. and perhaps more than any
thing else, has assured II It's judgments the con
idence of the people. The Geary act is not an
example OF enlightened and humane statesman
ship 1t may indeed deserve the severe de-
nunciation which Justice Field, in his dissent
ing opinion. applies t. it. But the wisdom OF
beneiicenoe Of a legislative enactment is not the
question which the Supreme Court is empowered
to review, and it would be difficult to reconcile
the judgments Of the Supreme Court affirming
the legality of earlier laws excluding the Chi
ncsa and providing for their deportation with
decision denying the legality of this one, which.
after all is in essence measure to secure the
enforcement of those already passed II is noto-
rous that the laws relating to Chinese immigia-
ton have been widely evaded, and in some re-
spects utterly ignored. We may listen sympa-
thetcally to those who maintain that they
should never have been passed. But they were
passed, and in that part of the country in which
the Chinese question is a practical matter they
are emphatically and perhaps generally ap-
proved, though even there public opinion is far
from being unanimous. And those who believe
that there are only two things 10 do abont a
law-to repeal il or 10 respect it-cannot regard
with entire appreciation the methods employed
to nullify the exclusion statutes
The GeaIy act made two provisions. 1t re-
enacted :he legislation already existing as TO
Chinese immigration and residence for further
period of ten years. and it required the Chinese
entitled to remain here under that legislation to
apply for a certificate of residence. The latter
provision was intended TO discover those China
men who are here in defiance of existing law
and TO require their deportation II was this
clause to which constitutional objection was
made but the Court has declared the compe
tency OF Congress 10 enact II. If the Court had
done otherwise the powers Of Congress TO re-
strict and control immigration and alien resi-
dence would have been seriously cultailed and
in most respects rendered questionable ii has
always been the inherent right Of sovereignty
10 determine the conditions under which aliens
may reside in its dominions. There are obvious
reasons why this right should not be denied by
the courts. They are not instituted to annnl
the powers of Congress.
The course Of President Cleveland Inc sus
pending of his own motion the operation of the
Geary act until the Supreme Court had rem
dercd its decision has been criticised in some
qullters, and not without a show Of reason, as
usurpation of powers which do not belong to
him. But whatever may be thought of this or
however opinions may differ as to the Geary
act the President is now obliged, as best he
can, to put The law into operation. The situa-
ton should suggest even to those who are most
sirenuousy opposed TO this measure the sa-
gacity of General Grants remark that "the
best way to get rid of bad law is to enforce it,"