The record-union., 1893-09-06
Special to the RECoRD-UNIoN.
by Attorney-General Olney.

LOS ANGELES, o0pU. o. uCSo Ross, OF
the United States District Court, to-day
ordered the deportation of Chung Shang
Yuen. under the sixth section of the
Geary Act.
When the case was called for hearing, a
telegram from Attorney-Gener Olney
was read which stated that there were no
funds to execute the Geary law, and re-
questing Judge Ross to discharge the
Chinese arrested under the Geary Act,
but ordering them to be deported when
ever provision for such deportation shall
be made by the proper authorities. Judge
Ross, in his decision, says:
This communication was, no doubt,
occasioned by the statement made in the
opinion given at the time of issuing the
warrant, to the effect that the warrant
was issued in the absence Of judicial
knowledge on my part that The depart
ment of the Government charged with
the duty of executing the provisions of
the Geary Act was not provided with the
necessary funds for the purpose, and that
were L so advised, no warrant for such
offending Cinnamon would be issued nor
order for deportation made.
These views were grounded on the fact
that to do so would not only greatly en-
Government, which, without necessary
funds, would be manitestly powerless to
send out OF the country persons ordered
to be deported, and in further of the fact
that such offending persons could not be
constitutionally imprisoned at hard labor
in State Prison as is provided by the
fourth section of the Geary Act, and be-
cause any unreasonable detention OF them
would entitle them to discharge from the
very court ordering deportation, or any
other court having power to inquire, by
writ of habeas corpus, into the illegal re-
straint Ofany person of his liberty.
Such a course is in no respect ipconsist-
ent with the entire independence of the
judiciary. While, under our system, the
Government in each of its great depart
ments is executive, the judicial and leg
islative is, within its proper sphere,
wholly Independent Of others; yet the de-
sign is that all shall work in harmony.
and not at cross purposes.
The provision of the statute in question
is not penal law. 1t was so decided by
the Supreme Court in the case OF Fong
Yue Ting VS.. the United States.
4. Its enactment was the exercise Of q po-
litical power by Congress to expel GER
tain class of aliens from the country
which could be exercised, as was decided
in the case cited, entirely through execu-
tive officers, or through them with the aid
of the judiciary.
By neither method could Objectionable
persons be sent away without money to
defray the necessary expenses of deporta-
ton, and l, therefore, repeat what was
said when awarding the warrant, that no
Judge, in my opinion, should order into
custody for deportation any Chinaman
whom he judicially knows cannot be de-
ported by the Executive Department for
want of necessary means.
But information conveyed to the court
through the AttorneyG General is not that
there are no funds available for the ex-
ecution of the Geary Act, but that there
are no funds to execute the Geary law as
far as the same provides for the deporta-
ton of Cinnamon who have not procured
certificates of residence.
That portion of the Geary Act, requir-
ing such certificates to be procured. is
Section 9th, and its validity having been
sustained by the Supreme Court in the
case of FOng Yue Ting VS.. the United
States, 1t is as much a part of the Gearv
law as any other part of it.
Any Chinese laborer violating it's pro-
visions and thereafter remaining in this
country is as much unlawfully here as if
he smuggled himself into the country
contrary to the other provisions of the
statute, for the simple reason that in each
case the existing law makes the act un-
ject to deportation and equally so.
No distinction can be legally made be-
tween offenders, and l can see no valid
ground for withholding the warrant for
the arrest of any person properly charged
with the violation of any provisions of
the law in question.
The clear inference is drawn from the
communication by the Attorney General
that there are funds available for the exc
cution of the Geary law other than its
sixth section. The distinction thus
attempted to be drawn between the diff
ferent offenses denounced by statute is.
in my judgment, without authority of
the law, and my sense of duty obliges me
to disregard it.
Congress made no such distinction in
making, as it did, an appropriation for
the enforcement of the provisions OF the
Geary Act in the Act of August
5, 1892, entitled AN Act making ap-
propriatiOns for sundry civil ex-
penses of the Government for the
fiscal year ending June 80, 1893, and
for other purposes" and in making
similar appropriation for the same pur-
pose in the Act of March 3, 1898, entitled
AN Act making appropriations for sun
dry civil expenses Of the Government for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1894, and
for other purposes" The provision first
referred to is found in the United States
Statutes-at-large, 1S9l-1S93, page 365, and
is as follows:
1.-THE enforcement of the Chinese Fx-
clusion Act, to prevent unlawful entry of
Chinese into the United States, by ap-
pointment of suitable officers to enforce
laws in relation thereto, for the expenses
of returning to China all Chinese persons
found to be unlawfully in the United
States, including the cost of imprison-
ment and the actual expense of convey
ance Of Chinese persons TO the frontier or
seaboard for deportation, and for enforc-
ing the provisions of the Act approved
May 5, 1892, entitled AN Act to prohibit
the coming OF Chinese persons into the
United States 100000"
An appropriation for the fiscal year
ending June 80, 1894, is found in the same
volume, and is as follows: Enforce
ment of Chinese Exclusion Act; to pre-
vent the unlawful entry of Chinese into
the United States by the appointment of
suitable officers to enforce the laws in re-
lation thereto, and for the expenses of re-
turning to China all Chinese persons
found to be unlawfully in the United
States, including the cost of imprison-
ment and the actual expense of the con-
veyance of Chinese persons to frontier or
seaboard for deportation, and for enforc-
ing the provisions of the Act approved
May 3, 1892, entitled: AN Act to pro-
hibit coming of Chinese persons into the
United States $4,000, together with the
unexpended balance of the appropriation
for this object for the fiscal year OF 1893"