The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1893-06-27
SUBTLE PROPOSITIONS.
Attorney Hotchkiss and the
Wong Dip Ken Case.
lie Makes q Formidable Argument
Before Judge Ross.
The Proceedings Yesterday OF Very
Profound Character - The
Points Which Were
Brought out.

Dip Ken, sentenced by United States
Commissioner VIM. s. Van Dyke. to two
days' imprisonment at the San Quentin
state penitentiary and then to deporta-
ton to China.
In fact the bearing brought up ques-
tions also by the government counsel,
which involved points which are far
reaching, and which caused the district
attorney to say that until the points
coed in directing further arrests OF Chi
men under the Gesry act.
1t Is very well known that Wong Dip
Ken, Chinese cigarmaker, was arrested
at the inetance OF the Federated Trades
OF Los Angeles, as being unlaWfully in
tho country.
After considerable preliminary delay
he had an examination or trial before
United States Commissioner Van Dyke,
being complained against under the ex-
clusion act of 1882. Nevertheless
the commissioner held that the
act OF May 8, 1892, or the Gesry
act controlled the procedure, and when
the government had established by two
witnesses that he was Chinese laborer,
that he was entitled to be in the United
States. Testimony was introduced, but
the commissioner did not consider it
sufficient, and sentenced Dip Ken to two
days at hard labor in San Quentin and
then to deportation to China.
From this Judgment a.. B. Hotchkiss
and Mr. Frank Thomas, counsel for the
Chinaman, filed notice of appeal to
Judge Ross, district Judge, and the mat
ter WAS set for hearing for yesterday
afternoon.
When the time arrived District Attor-
ney Denis. in the presence OF a very few
spectators, moved to dismiss the appeal.
He stated that the appeal was asked
for under the congressional act of Sep.
tember 10, 1888, which provided for
such an appeal. The act was one to
prohibit the coming of Chinese leborers
into the country. But the treaties pro-
vided for had never been ratified by
both governments, and he considered
the act Ineffective. The thirteenth sec
ton of the act provided for the appeal to
the district Judge, and some had held
that even that if the rest of the act was
ineffective. this section was operative.
Ii this was SO the appeal in this case was
correct.
But, continued the district attorney,
the acts referred to were all prior to the
Geary act, the act of May 5, 1892. That
superseded ell laws as to procedure. 1t
took the place OF all former acts, and
prescribed the mode Of enforcing it, to-
SO her with tho puniehment. No acts
prior to the Geary act established that
Cinnamon should affirmatively show
their right to be- in tho United States.
1t revolutionlzed the federal procedure.
Mr.. Denia then said that the govern
ment moved to dismiss the appeal on
the ground that Id was asked for alone
under section 13 OF the act Of 1888.
WAS the conviction under the act of
1882" asked Judge Ross.
mo, sir, [" replied the diatrict attorney.
''It was under the fourth section OF the
Geary act. ut becomes my duty to in
form the court that | have been in
atructed not to proceed under the sixth
section of the Geary act by the attorney
general, the section relative to registra-
tion."
The district attorney, continuing, con-
tended that if the defendant must como
before the court it mugt be by habeaB
corpus proceedings and not by appeal.
An appeal, he urged, if at all must be
taken to the supreme court of the
United States, because the Gsary act
preecribes different procedure from the
thirteenth section of the act of 1888.
Mr.. Hotchkiss then made quite an
elaborate argument TO the court. He
stated that the propositions before the
court involved interesting and exceed
ingly important questions.
MY investigation of this prosecution
80 fer" said the attorney, "shows that,
after having heard the testimony, the
commissioner Rdjudicated the prisoner
guilty of felony and sentenced him to
hard labor in q penitentiary.
Judge Roes-"Do you say he was sen.
fenced to hard labor in a state peniten-
tary ("
Mr.. Hotchkiss-"Y air."
Mr. Dens-"Yes, that is ao."
Mr.. Hotchkiss-"rhst was iudg-
ment iniiicting at once an infamous
punishment, cruel and degrading leav-
ing the burden upon the Chinaman to
show that there WAS no moral turpi-
| tude.
"Such proceeding has led me to
wonder how the grave persona who en-
acted this legislation could have pasted
such lsw."
Counsel then went on to say that he
believed that as in ell tho previous leg.
islation on the exclusion OF the Chinese
there had been no provision that might
be regarded as due process of law. the
thirteenth section of the act OF 1888 was
provided TO meet this matter by allow
ing an appeal.
He did not consider that ratification
of the treaty was necessary by both par
ties to afford the protection OF the laws
OF our country to the defendant. There
was no repeating clause in the act of
1892. 1t continued all the previous acts
in force, ana there was nothing in the
Geary oct in conflict with hia view that
this appeal should be the remedy. Not
withstanding that congress did not go
into details counsel did not think there
was anything in the act TO prevent the
court from carrying Gus the underlying
principles of our conatitrtion in the pro-
lection Of the life and liberty of the de-
PENDANT.
3Ir. Hotchkiss then detailed the pro-
ceedipgs which had resulted in the con-
Viction and sentence of Wong Dip Ken,
and said he had no criticism to make of
the United States commissioner, but
urged that the act udder which he save
Judgment was unconstitutional unless
the appeal could DO entertained. ii this
most futocratic and un.American pro,
ceeding could occur, he earnestly argued,
the name of liberty had become by
word. The breadth and scope OF the