Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1893-05-18

WAsHINGToN, May 10.--The special sos
ZION OF the Supreme Court to-day, to hear
argument upon tho coRstitutionslity OF the
Geary Chinese exclusion act, upon appeal
from the judgment of the United States
Circuit Court for thu southern district OF
New York, attracted an attendance that
more than exhausted the accommodations
of the court room.
The argument was opened by Joseph II.
Choate Of Now York for the petitions for
writ OF habea, corpus fer Fong Nue Ting,
Wong Guam and Lee Joe.
MIR. Choate said be would state broadly
Two questions at issue. FIRST shall 100, 600
unofTendirg and helpless residents CT this
country under the authority OF an act of
Congress, without review by its courts, be
transported to the sea shore and thence de-
ported to their native country and second,
In case the emperor OF China shall to-mor-
row feel inclined to follow the exam
pie of this great and enl!Ehtsr ed
country, and expel from his domain the
Americans residing therein, shall the voice
Of this people, either through lite govern
ment, its press, or by individuals. be pre-
vented from uttering O siaEIe protest. MIR.
Choate prefaced his argument with q state
ment Of facts in the three cases which he
said differed chiefly in heing initiated at
various stages of the operation of the la W.
1t appeared that Lee Joe's case presented,
in addition to the questions involved in the
others, the constitutlonnlty OF the provi-
sions of tue exclusion act requiring the
chinese to present white witnesses in cup
port of their right to receive a certificate.
Mr.. Choate asserted that no power is given
to Congress by the constitution to remove
friendly alien residents in time of peace,
aud that tho appellants were more than
friendly alien residents, they were DEMONS
Of this country.
lie argued that the section of the act uu-
Ter discussion Is, in effect, bill OF attainder
and is unconstitutional as a violation OF
subdivision 3, section 0, article l of the
constitution ard finally the power, some
times called police regulation, does not re
aide in Congress.
Charles ii. Aldrich, solicitor general, ap-
peared in behalf OF the United States aud
argued in favor Of the constitutlonality Of
the Geary law. lie conteuded that tue
Geary act had not for its purpose the de-
portaton Of Chinese laborers, but TO pro
vide system Of Identification and reg,stra-
ton for such as were here. This is law
tul purpose whether applied TO citizens or
aliens, and had never been seriously dis
puted. The means by which the identiiica-
lion is attained were also lawful, and the
act is reasonable ami human.
Mr.. Aldrich maintained u the right Of
Congress to require aliens or t!Hsus to
register or obtain certificates OF identiica-
ton; ~ the power OF Congress to authorize
judge without the Intervention of jury
TO sentence to deportation a person who has
not procured and is not in possession of the
prescribed certificates.
The right of Congress to restrict and oven
forbid such immigration, lie said, must be
conceded. The lsgislation under cors,dera-
ton, he contended, was authorized by the
treaty Of 1880, which reserved the right, on
he part of the United States, to "reguato,
limit, or suspend such coming Of residents .
j. Hubley Ashton CT Washington con
cluded the argument for appellants. lie
argued that The question presented to the
court concerned the funda mental principles
of American constitutional liberty, the
right 20 freedom, property and the pursui
oi happiness Of many thousands Of persons
living and lahorlng long and peacefully
under the protection of the constitution and
laws Of this land. as well az the friendly in
ternational relations between the United
States ana China and the welfare of Amer
lean citizens and American interests in that
great empire.