The morning call., 1893-05-11
NO RIGHT IN LAW.
Mr.. Choate's Sentimental
Argument.
JOHN CHINAMAN IN COURT.
Learned Lawyers Talk on the
Geary Act.
WHERE THE POLICE POWER LIES
II Will Be Sad Day for the Chinese
When the States Take a
Hand.
JOHN CHINAMAN IN COURT.
WHERE THE POLICE POWER LIES
Special to THE MoRxrxo CALL.


the Geary Chinese exclusion act upon the
appeal from the judgment of the United
States Circuit Court for the Southern Dis
trict of New York attracted attendance
that more than exhausted the limited ac-
commodations of the courtroom. The vis
itors included many prominent members
of the bar and a large number of ladies.
Argument was opened by Joseph Fl.
Choate of New York for petitioners for a
writ Of habeas corpus for FOnG Yue Ling,
Wong Guam and Lee Joe. Choale said he
believed il was not permissible for counsel
10 seek to impress upon the court the i'm
portance and magnitude of question in
Volved in cases submitted for its adjudica-
tiou. NeyeTthe ess, he said, he would so
far transgTesS the rule as to stale broadly
two questions at issue. They were, first,
shall 100000 unoffending, helpless resi-
dents OF this country under the authority
of an act OF Congress. without review by
Its courts, be transported 10 the seashore
and thence deported to their native coun-
try? and. second, in case the Emperor of
China shall tomorrow feel inclined to fol-
low the example Of this great and euight-
ened country ana eXpel from his domain
the Americans residing therein, shall the
voice of this people, either Though its
Government, its press or by individuals,
be prevented from utteriDg a single pro-
test? Choate prefaced his argument with
n statement of facts in the three cases.
which lie said differed chiefly in being
initiated al various stages Of the operation
Of the law.
1t appeared from this that Lee and Joe's
case presented, in addition TO the ques-
tious involved in the others, the cOnstitu-
tionality Of that provision Of the exclusion
act requiring the Chinese to present white
witnesses in support of their right to re-
ceive certificates. Alter 4 resume of the
provision Of the treaty and the legislative
history OF the relations Of the United
States and China, Choate said: The act
of May 8, 1892, was passed in accordance
with a desire to keep out more Chinese
from the country. The sixth section is
wholly distinct from and unlike the other
sections. The first FIVE sections follow the
provisions Of the treaty OF 1880 and the
provisions of the Burlingame treaty. It
had been decided that when, in the opin-
ion of the United States Government, it
became evident that the importation Of
Chinese threatened the welfare Of the
country, the Chinese Government agreed
that this country might regulate the COM
ing of such Chinese, but may not abso-
lutely prohibit 1t.
May it please your Honors, there has
already been enacted law providing for
the expulsion of persons not lawfully en-
titled TO remain in the United States. II
is hard TO reconcile the title with the con-
struction put upon the section which takes
away right already conferred to remain
in the country. The lower court recog-
f1bE CF ,Ia !,
represent to remain in the United States
and then takes it away from them. Is it
the intention of the United States to re-
woke treaty already made with friendly
nation and thus deprive thousands OF peo--
pie of a residence whom it has already de-
cided have the right TO remain here? The
Chinese have right to remain here, and
according TO this act they shall have that
right so long as they comply with its pro-
visions. There. is one other reason why
the Intention to return the Chinese TO
China should not be imputed TO the franz
ers Of this act, and that is that Congress
has no power in time of peace TO expel
any friendly aliens who have come here
upon Invitations and have taken up their
residence in this country"
Choate submitted that the exclusion act
deprived his clients Of their liberty with
Oul due process Of law and in direct
violation Of the fifth amendment to the
constitution, 10 the protection Of which
they were unquesionably entitled, and
further that by the sixth section Of the act
appellants were deprived of their property
without due process Of law and it was
therefore unconstitutional Other points
made by Choate in opposition to the
validity Of the law were that the third
article of the constitution was clearly
violated in three respects by the sixth
section Of the act, first in that it attempts
10 vest executive power in a United
States Judge, where judicial power only
Is 10 be vested in the courts OF the United
States. The only section so far as IL con-
fers judicial power attempts 10 confer 1t
upon the Individual Judge of no particu-
lar court and not In any court and also
eonfers 1t on the collector, an executive
officer. Third, the third article provides
that the judicial power shall extend to
cases and what is to be brought by the act
before 4 United States Judge is not a.
lease" The section of the act under dis
cussi0n is in effect bill Of attainder aud
is unconstitutional as violation of SUBJ
division 3, section 9, article Y of the con-
stitution. And finally the power some
times called police regulations" does not
reside in Congress.
SOlicitor-Generai Aldrich argued In IA
vor of the c0nsttutlonality of the Geary
law. which he said had not been made for
the purpose Of the deportation of Chinese
laborers. as counsel for petitioners erro-
neOusly claimed, but to provide a system
Of Identification aud registration for such
rs were here. This is lawful purpose,
whether applied TO citizens or aliens, in
the face of the fact that the right of the
Government to require the Identification
ana registration of Its citizens. their pos
sessions, resources and locations had never
been seriously disputed. The means by
which such Identification was attained, the
Solicitol-General contended. was lawful and
reasonable and humane in its provisions
Aldrich maintained the right of Congre IS
10 require aliens or citizens to register or
obtain certificates of Identification, and he
argued tie power of Congress to authorize
Judge, without the intervention of
jury, 10 sentence to deportation
person who had not procured and was
not in possession Of the prescribed certif-
cate, because a nation has The right. ac-
cordiug 10 International law, to prescribe
the terms upon which citizens or subjects
of other nations shall be admitted to its
territory and TO forbid such admission
or, having admitted such citizens and sub
jects, il has the right 10 regulate aud limit
their residence therein. and whenever il
chooses TO do so may suspend such resi-
dence altogether and require that they
shall be deporicd from its territory" He
said that the United States was a nation
possessing like power with other nations
10 exercise tie ordinary necessary means
Of self-preservation From this it fol-
lowed that there is a police power Of the
United States which extends 10 and en-
braces all subjects confded to the Gen.
eral Government and against the exercise
OF which the Chinese alien resident here
Nere therefore not entitled B aYoke the