Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1893-06-05

WASHINGTON, ID. c., June 4.-Ths
decision Of the Supreme Court upon the
Chinese exclusion act, recently deliv-
cred, may possibly have a much wider
scope and affect a greater variety OF
persons than was probably foreseen By
the Associate Justices who Joined with
Mr.. Gray Ia declaring 1t to be the law
OF the land. The volume OF Foreign
Relations" for 1892, just published By
the State Department, contains q case
in point, wherein the arguments
used by foreign government to justify
or explain its decree OF expulsion OF .
citizen OF the United States, IL is pointed
out by those who are familiar with the
subject. are in suggestive parallel with
those outlined by justice Gray, In an
nouncing the opinion Of judgment OK
the Supreme Court Of the United States,
on the 18th OF last month.
The circumstances OF the case as
SuOWu Oy pdOiichth NOtANePoh0Oheo
were these: Leon Splitter, born at
Vienn a, Austria, January 1867. cmi-
grated to the United States February
1882, was naturaliLed In New York
January 1889. and returned TO Europe
November 1859, and TO Vienna July
1890. In an afiidavit, Mr.. Splitter de-
clared that his residence was In
New York where he was -
manufacturer" and that he Intended
Ito return to the United States within
two years with the purpose OF residing
and performing the duties OF citizenship
therin." In March 1892, Splitter was
notified by the authorities OF Vienna,
that he had been expelled from Austria
under law OF 1851. He appealed TO
Mr.. Grant who brought the case 10 the
attention OF Count Kalnoky, minister
Of foreign affairs, protesting that this
treatment was in violation OF the
treaty OF 1870 between Austria-Hun-
gary and the United States, guarantee
ing certain rights ard the projection
thereof TO the citizens OF the res
countries. Replying 10 MiDS
Grants complaint on behalf OK Splitter.
Connt Welserscheimb. for the Ministry
OF Foreign Affairs, said that Splitter
emIgratng TO the United States was
manlfestiy for the purpose OK
evading tho military duty which the
Austrian government exacts OF their
citizens; that the expulsion OF such In
dlyiduals is based upon consideration OK
public order; and that every State has q
right to expel foreigners from It's terri
tory for reasons as above stated; and
that the question whether and when
reasons for such expulsion exist can be
Judged only from an international point
OF view"
This sentiment accords with the
views expressed by Mr.. Justice Gray.
and the language is quite similar.
Minister Grant Informed Count Kali
noky that the United states would not
accept this Interpretation. Secretary
Foster, in a dispatch dated July 20,
1892. said, after stating that the Uni
ted States would entertain PROPOSE
tion for modification OF the treaty In
question::
.'But so long as the treaty remains In
force the United States will Insist upon
| a strict compliance with its terms, and
after a careful examination OF the case
Il
is reluctantly Obliged TO dissent from
the views expressed by the Austrian
Hungarian government. As Splitter was
expelled on the vague grounds OF the
interests OF public order aud asno VAL
i'd and explicit reasons IN support OF the
order are alleged your action In making
formal protest is approved By the de-
partment."
This ended the correspondence 30 far
as this republic and Spltzer's departure
for the United States was concerned.
II was intimated In Minister Grants
letter that It probably closed the incl
| dent.
In view OF the apparent inconsis-
tency between the views OF the execn-
tive and judicial branches Of the gov
eminent, as disclosed by this cores
pondence and the decision Of the Geary
law, the attitude OF the governments
upon the next case OF alleged violation
of the treaty right by European gov
ernment will be watched with interest.