The herald., 1893-05-16

nanctity OF an oath. He would no
touch upon the wisdom, the policy, over
the juetice OF the act. These question
were for tho political, legislative an,
executive departments Of the gov
eInnent,. ii the act were within
their constitutional powers, and itwoul,
be out OF place for the court to inter
fere. What congress had done had no
been TO provide for any definition 0
crime in the act nor to provide any pun
lshment. It provided that the perHonl
In question should be sent out of thu
country 20 the place from whence they
came. 1t provided not for the adjudica
ton OF crime, but simply for the re-
moval of persona whose presence con
gresa considers inconsistent with the
public welfare. IL must be remembered
that Chinese cannot be naturalized.
Doubtless they are entitled to the se-
rurity and safeguard guaranteed. by the
constitution and laws in such measure
ne they provide, but there was nothing
In the constitution or laws which inn
Dugned the power OF congress to COM
BEL them to leave the country.
Justice Gray said an opinion in writ
ing would be filed as soon "a possible.
JUSTICE BREWER DGssENTs.
At the conclusion OF Justice Gray's
opinion, Justice Brewer announced that
he WAS compelled to Dissent from the
majority OF the court. lie read his views
at some length, declaring in substance
that the act OF 1892 was demonstrations
al; that il upheld there was no guaran-
tee that similar treatment might not he
accorded other classes OF our popula-
ton.
Justice Brewers opinion was verbal
one and at its conclusion he notified tho
court that he would prepare an ex-
tended written opinion on the subject
which would be filed in the records OF
the case. He eaid the fourteenth
amendment could not be construed as
being entirely confined to the protection
of citizens OF the United States. It's pro-
visions applied to all people living in the
jurisdiction of the United States.
He defined the meaning OF the use OF
the word persons" in the fifth amend
ment, which he said must be equally
comprehensive 30, elao, must be the
sixth amendment. In his opinion there
WAS no question regarding the general
power OF the government to enact lava
keeping people out OF the United States,
or to summarily deal with persons who
unlawfully came In. However, this act
dealt with persons who were lawfully
In the United States. 1t ia not
possible that any law can be
put into effect that shall take
property from people within our border,
for which compensation ia not given. 1t
is but fair to say deportation is punish
ment; ii 10 deprivation OF liberty and
removal from home, family, business 1
and property. This can be considered
less than punishment OF the
severest nature.
Justice Brewer held II man has been
born, brought up and established here,
he can be seized and driven from the
country under the provisions of the |
Geary act. lie insisted that the powers
conferred on the collector were surely |
not such as TO constitute q due process
OF law.
Justice Brewer did not believe the
provisions of the Geary law made just
in reference to bringing unreg.
stored Chinese before proper judges
With due respect to limitation as to their
,ower, and for these reasons declared
limself unequiyocally against the law.
JUSTICE FIELD pENouNcEs THE ACT.
Justice Field, who delivered the opin-
on OF the supreme court in the FIRST case
Under the exclusion act also read dis.
Ienting opinion. He made wide diff |
erence between immigrants and de-
ported alien residents and characterized
he act in the strongest language as in
luman, brutal and a violation OF the
in every section. He re-
70 that ha fanf.sC,, -
curt to his mind was fraught with the
,raveet dangers to constitutional liberty.
He said: 1.-THE power of the govern
nent to exclude foreigners from this
country, that is, prevent them from en-
ering it whenever public interests, in
To Judgment, require such exclusion,
legislative department., but the deporta-
lion from this country of persons law
ully dcmiciled therein by permission OF
'he government and engaged in
he ordinory pursuits OF life, has
ment since its foundation, except
for crime or as an act of war in view Of |
existing or anticipated hostiities, nm
less the alien act of 1898 can be eonsid-
cred as recognizing that doctrine. In |
was passed, has any public man had the |
Doldness to advocate the department of |
friendly aliens in a time of peace,
repeat the statement that in
no other instance has the deport-
ment of friendly aliens been
advocated as q lawful measure by any
department of our government, and it
will surprise most people to learn that |
any such dangerous and despotic power
lies in our government which will au.
thorize it to expel at pleasure in times
of peace whole bodies of friendly for
eigners of any country domiciled herein
by its permission.
''Ie it possible that congress can, at
Its pleasure, expel at any time Irish,
German, French and English people
who have taken up their residence here
On invitation of the government, in dis.
regard of guarantees of legislation, sim
ply on the ground that they have not
been naturalized2 The moment any
human being comes within the consent
Of the government, and such conse MT
will always be implied when not pur-
posely withheld, and in case of
Chinese laborers before the United
States wae on terms given by treaty, he
becomes subject to all its laws and
to their punishment and en-
titled to their protection. Arbitrary and
deepotic authority can no more be exer-
cised over them with reference to their
persons and property than over the
persons and property of native born |
citizens. They differ only from
citizens in that respect that they cannot
vote or hold any public affices, As men