Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1893-05-18

court today, through Justice GRAY.
sustained the decision of the New York
courts in favor of the cOnstitutionality
OF the Gea1y exclusion act. Justice
Brewer dissented. Dissenting opinions
We're also filed by Chief Justice Fuller
and Justice Field
Justice Gray said in announcing the
judgment of the court that the mower
OF this nation to restrict or prohibit the
immigration Of any aliens into the
country, or to require such aliens al
ready IN the country to remove here
from, was a well-settled principle of
international law and was confirmed
by an unbroken line of decisions in
this court.
Inc legislative power of the govern
ment had not transcribed any of its
constitutional limitations in the act
under consideration. 1t was within its
power to determine the regulations
under which these aliens should be per-
mltted to remain in the United States.
or failing to observe these regulations
they should be required to leave the
country.
The provisions of section 6 of the act.
Which are the parts Of law particularly
at issue, are not inconsistent with the
relations and duties Of the legislative
and judicial departments of the govern
ment. The mode of procedure set forth
in the section is similar to that of other
wellestablished proceedings. such as
the habeaS corpus and naturalization
liking the requirements of citizenship
and the like, in which the judicial
branch Of the government accepted the
determination of the executive upon
the questions involved.
AS to the requirements that the
Chinese entitled to remain in this coun-
try should establish that right by the
evidence of one credible white witness.
Justice Gray said that it was within
the power of the legislature to deter
mine the character of evidence that
might be received in a case at law
and what forcve should be given to the
| testimony SO offered. Not discussing
the wisdom nor the justice of the act
IL quetlon, which was beyond the PROV
lnce of the judicial branch of the GOV
eminent, it 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 cor
pus to the several petitioners was af-
firmed.
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 He
read his views at some length, declar-
ing in substance, the act of 1892 was
unconstitutional and that if it were up
held there was no guaranty that sim
liar treatment might not be accorded
to other classes of our population 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. He held that there
was wide difference between exclu-
sion of immigrants and the deportation
of alien residents. He regretted to
say that 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 and de-
MED the soundness o. the proposition
that the cases were such as the politi-
cal department of the government
alone could deal with.
The act before the court is not an act
to abrogate or repeal a treaty nor eN-
pei Cinnamon here, and no such intent
could be imputed to congress. Its OBJ
ject was to prescribe a method Of reg
istration, and deportation by way of
punishment was, in his view, an I'M
usual punishment not authorized by
the constitution.
After the court had concluded the an
nouncement of the opinions J Hubley
Ashton, of counsel for the Chinese,
move for a rehearing of the case and
an argument before full bench at the
next term. The court took a short
recess to consider the motion and, upon
reassembling, refused to grant it. So
the opinion stands as announced.
Not only is the Geary law the most
drastic of all the statutes enacted by
congress against the Chinese, but in
some of it's features it is without
parallel in American legislation. 1t con-
tinues in force all laws existing at the
time of it's enactment for the exclusion
of Mongolians from the United States
and denies the right of bail to any
one arrested at port of arrival.
1t then provides for the registration
by May 5, 1898, of every Chinaman in
the country and the taking out of a
certificate by every one SO registered.
Any Chinaman may be arrested after
that date and unless he produces such
certificate or gives such satisfactory
reasons for not doing so he is liable
to Imprisonment not exceeding a year
and then Punishment from the country.
Every person arrested is required to
prove his right to remain here. The
government is not called upon to show
guilt. The accused must prove his in
nocence. and to this end must produce !
the testimony Of at least one white
witness. If he fails to prove his inno-
cence he is deemed guilty and may be
banished by the edict Of a United States
judge without trial by jury.
Of the hundred thousand or more
Chinese in the United States conpara-
lively few, it is said, have complied
with the provisions Of this law by
registering themselves and taking out
certificates. All who have failed to do |
so are liable to arrest, imprisonment
and Punishment now that the Geary