Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1893-05-19

COURTS LII ldBOE OI the cOISIlIuLIOuilUIy
Of The Geary exclusion act Justice
Brewer disscnted. Dissenting opinions
were also filed by Chief Justice Fuller
and Justice Field.
Justice Gray said in announcing tine
Judgment Of the court that the power
OF this nation TO restrict Or prohibit the
immigration Of amy aliens into the
country, or to require such aliens al
ready i'll the country to remove here
from, was Wcll-scttled principle Of
international law and was confirmed
by iii unbroken line Of decisions i'll
this court.
The legislative power Of the govern
ment had not tItnSccnded any Of its
constitutional limitations i'll the act
under consideration. 1t was within its
power to determine tine regulations
under which these aliens should be per
mItted to remain III the United States,
OF falling to observe these regulations
they should be required to leave the
country.
The provisions Of section Of the act,
Which are the parts Of law particularly
ut 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
III the section is similar to that of other
established proceedings such AS
the habeaS corpus and naturalization
fixing the requirements Of citizenship
and the like, i'll which the judicial
branch Of the government accepted the
determination of the executive upon
the questions involved.
As to the requirements that The
Chimes entitled to remain in this coun-
try should establish that right by the
evidence of one credible white witness,
Justice Gray said that il was within
the power of the legislature to deter
mine the character of evidence that
might be received i'll ease at law
and what fOrcyc should be given to the
testimony SO offered. Not discussing
the wisdom nor the justice of the act
in auction, which was beyond the PROV
ince 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-
tirmed.
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 ut some length, dCclar-
ing i'll 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 Opn-
ion of the supreme court in the first
case under the exclusion act. also read
q dissenting opinion. lie held that th, re
was i wide difference between cNcIu-
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 graycSt
dangers to the priceless constitutional
liberties of the people.
Chief Justice Fuller also diSsentcd
from the opinion Of the court and de
rhat the cases were such rs the politi-
cal department of the government
alone could deal with.
The act before the court is not an act
to abrogate or repeal Il treaty nor OK
pei Cinnamon here, and no such intent
could be imputed to congress. Its OBJ
ject was to prescribe 4 method of reg
istration, and deportation by way of
punishment was, in his view, an un-
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 Il rehearing of the case and
IN argument before Il full bench at the
next term. The court took Il short
recess to consider the motion and. upon
reaSSembling, refused to grant it. Sc
the opinion stands as announced.
Not only is the Geary law the most
drastic of all the statutes enacted 10y
congress against the Chinese, but IL
some of its features it is without ;
parallel in American legislation. 1t con
tinues in force all laws existing at thu
time of its enactment for the exclusion
Of Mongolians from the United State:
and denies the right of bail TO an,
one arrested at a port of arrival.
It then provides for the registration
by May 5, 1898. of every Chinaman IL
the country and the taking out of
certificate by every one so registered
Any Chinaman may be arrested ate
that date and unless he produces sue
certificate or gives such Satisfactor-
reasons for not doing so he is iabl
to Imprisonment not exceeding a yea
and then punishment from the country
Every person arrested is required t
prove his right to remain here. TIL
government is not called upon to ShoN
guilt. The accused must prove his il
nocence, and to this end must produc
the testimony of at least one whit
witness If he fails to prove his inn(
cence he is deemed guilty and may b
banished by the edict of Il United State
Judge without trial by jury.
Of the hundred thousand or MOI
Chinese in the United States conpar;
lively few, it is said, have compile
with the provisions of this law /
registering themselves and taking OF
certificates. All who have failed to {
so are liable to arrest, imprisonmel
and Punishment now that the Gear
law has been adjudged constitutional.
The law is a fragrant violation of Il
treaty with China by which the Unite