The herald., 1893-05-19
SAN FRANCISCO LETTER.
How the Chinese Decision Was Received.
Justice Field Critieized.


How the Chinese Decision Was Received.
Justice Field Critieized.
DEAR HERALD: The decision Of the
supreme court in the registration cases
has given great satisfaction to the great
mass OF the people hereaway. What the
administration will do with respect to
the enforcement of the law, now that it
has been declared valid by the highest
tribunal in the land. is, however, mat
ter OF serious conjecture. Not one CHI
naman in thousand OF those who
come under the disabilities OF the act
has obeyed its mandates, and therefore
the Chinese almost as body are liable
to arrest and deportation. Congress,
however, has made but small provision
to meet 80 great and unexpected an
emergency. OF the amount appropri-
ated to enforce the law, there is perhaps
enough to deport one Thousand of tbexe
under its ban. Therefore the officers
ought to seize the most obnoxious of
them first. The highbinders and known
criminals ought to be the fret to go. BY
the time they have been got rid OF cons
gress will have met, and the Geary act
NAV be 90 amended ae TO give the rest OF
But there is general feeling that the
headmen of the Chinese Six Companies,
who advised their people to defy, the
law by refusing to register, ought to be
punished. These men deliberately ter
orized their people, and successfully OBJ
strucLed the operations of the law by
their threats. Every one of these men
should be indicted for the eoercive and
eontumacious courae they pursued. The
constitutionslity of the law could have
been tested even if the great mass of
the Chinese had registered There was
no hardship and nothing degrading inn
posed upon them. They would have
been subjected to no more trouble in
taking out certificate of registration
than Americans have to undergo in
many European countries. Indeed the
passport system is fraught with annoy
ances aud vexations which could not
have been encountered by the Oh nese
in taking out, at no expense to them
selves, certificates showing their right
OF residence in the United Stayes. There
is, of course, but one explanation of the
antsgonism the Six Companies deve-
oped against registration. 1t would
have effectually put an end to the
smuggling of excluded Chinese into the
country. This has been a great and
profitable business, and the managers of
the Six Companies have shared in the
illicit money gained by the successful
and continuous violation of the exclu-
sion act. II these men cannot be pun
ished it will detract materially from the
satisfaction we all feel over decision
that asserts the power and sovereignty
of the government over the residential
rights of aliens.
There ia much bitter criticism of the
attitude Justice Field has taken in the
matter. He ia the only member of the
court who is familiar with the Chinese
question on this coast. He had already
renderedIan opinion in former case in
which the constitutionality OF the act of
exclusion was maintained. He now
virtually eaye "Yes, you have the
right to exclude the Chinese from en-
trance into the country but after they
have entered you have no right to de-
termine whether they are rightfully
here. They may have been smuggled
into the country in defiance OF the law
they may have got through the custom
house by forged certificates and false
swearing; but once having successfully
port coil1ecq8Fy, jet OF tide-waiters and
lines to the north and the south, they
are inyiolable." Registration of the
Chinese within our lines is unconstitu-
tlonal; but it 10 perfectly within our
legal power to keep. them out. II 1t 10
within our power to keep them out, 1t ls
certainly within our power to determine
by lust and humane regulations that
those who are within got there of right
and legally. The power TO exclude un-
doubtedly carries with it the power to
make exclusion possible. Justice
Field, in his dissenting opinion, etfectu-
slly knocks away all the ground he had
to stand upon in his former decision
affirming the right of the government to
exclude A right is no right at all
when it ends just where 1t
can be made practically operative.
The law abhofa vain thing; and what
could be vainer than to say "Yes, you
NAV exclude theoretically, but not prac-
ticellv. You may exclude against the
regular and recognized modes of en-.
frances: but not against the illicit and
contraband modes. You can legally keep
men from entering your orchard by the
gateway; but il they scale your fence
thev are lawfully entitled to all the
fruit they can gather" Justice Fielf
may often before have delivered opin
ions that were open to criticism To-
erroneous Interpretation OF the law; bu
he has never incurred Justly the charg
OF flving in the face OF common sense.
There is 8 strong undercurrent OF feel
ing here that President Cleveland ha
weakened the Democratic party
chances on this coast for some tim
to come by the course he pursued in re
gard to this act. 1t is believed that tn
Six Companies would not have taken 8
bold and defiant a stand had the Pres
dent given evidence OF more resolut
and determined policy on the subject
enforcing the law. They do not stop t
reason that the president was confronte
with tremendous responsibility, an
was anxious to have ali doubts of tn
constitu ionality of the law dispelled b'
fore he made q movement looking u
, wards deportation. 1t should also .
, remembered in favor OF the president this
! he did everything in his power to e.
pedite the decision, and that the resu
-, of his great concern in the matter WI
Determining of the iseues raised in
SPACE of time never before equaled I
: tbe sunreme court Of the United State
, We have now settlement OF the Cn
nese question in way that places
practically and effectually at rest. III
, Objectionable people are not only @
/ cluded from admission into the countr
q but we have the machinery of the La
:. to operate to make that exclusion VIII
:, il never was before, effective. This
the end of long and arduous strugg