Birmingham age-herald., 1895-05-28
OPINION BY JUSTICE BREWER
Enbodies an Exhaustive Discussion Of the Powers of the General Government.
ANOTHER DECISION OF MUCH IMPORTANCE
Tbe sunrene Court Afirms the General Power of the United States to Ex- clude Aliens of All Kinds
 Geary Law Upheld,

Washington, May 27.-The habeas cor pus case of Eugene " Debs ct al. grow ing out of the great railroad strike at Chicago last summer. was decided in the supreme court of the United States to- day, it's unanimous opinion being read by Justice Brewer.
 The opinion embodies an exhaustive discussion of the contentious on behalf of Debs ct al., and concludes as follows:
 We have given to this case the most anxious and careful attention, for we realize that it touches closely on the questions of supreme importance to the people of this country Summing up our conclusions we hold that the government of the United States is one having Jur- isdiction over every foot of soil within it's territory; and acting directly upon each citizen; that while it is a govern ment of enumerated powers it has with in the limits of these powers all attri- butes of sovereignty; that to 1t is com mitted power over interstate commerce and the transmission of the mail; that the powers thus conferred upon the na- 1ional government are not informant, but have been assumed and put Into practical exercise by the constitution of congress; that in the exercise of those movers it is competent for the nation to remove all Instructions upon highways. natural or artificial, to the passage or interstate commerce or the carrying or the mail; that while 1t may be competent for the government Uhrough the leg islative branch and in the use of the en- tire executive power of the nation) to forcibly remove all such Instructions, It is equally within it's competency to ap- peal to the civil courts for an inquiry and determination as to the exist ence and character of any alleged Instructions, and if such interference exists or threatens to continue to invoke the powers of those courts to remove or restrain such Instructions; that the 1u- risdiction of courts to interfere in such matters by injunction Is one recognized from ancient times and by induhitable authority; that such Jurisdiction is as sisted by the fact that the instructions are accompanied by or consist of acts in themselves violations of the criminal law; that the proceedings by injunction are of civil character and may be en- forced by proceedings in contempt; that the penalty for violation of such in- junction is no substitute for and no de- fense to a prosecution for criminal or lenses committed in the course of such violatio that the complaint filed in thia case clearly showed an existing obStruc- tion of artificial highways for the pass age of interstate commerce and the transmission of the mail--an obStruc- tion not only temporarily existing, but threatening to continue: that under such complaint the circuit court had power to issue it's process of injunction; that hav- ing been issued and served on these de- fendants the circuit court had author- ity to inquire whether Its orders. had been disobeyed, and when found that they had been, then to proceed under section 725. of the revised statues. and enter the order of punishment com plained of and finally that the court, having full jurisdiction in the premises, its findings of the fact of disobedence is not open to review on habeas corpus in this or any other court.
 We enter into no examination of the act of July 2. 1890 (26 statute 209). upon which the circuit court relied mainly to sustain it's jurisdiction. It must not be understood from this that we dissent from the conclusions of the court in ref erence to the scope of the act, but sim ply that we prefer to rest our judgment on the broader ground which has been discussed in this opinion, believing it of importance that the principles under lying 1t should be fully stated and fully affirmed.
 The petition for a writ of habeas cor puS is denied.s
 The supreme court of the United States today decided the Geary Chinese exclusion act to be constitutional and incidentally affirmed the general power of the United States to exclude aliens of all kinds. The question came before the court in the case of Lem Moon Sing ap- pellant, vs. the United States. The ap- pellant transacted business in San Fran cisco for number of years, and in Jan- uary, 1894, went on a temporary visit to China with the intention of returning and continuing his residence in the United States. During his absence the Geary law of 1894 was passed.
 Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court, the important parts being as follows
 The contention is that while, generally speaking, the immigration officers have Jurisdiction under the statute to exclude an alien who is not entitled under some statute or treaty to come into the United States; yet if the alien is entitled by right of some law or treaty to enter this country, but is nevertheless excluded by such officers, the latter exceed their ju- risdiction, and their legal action, if 1t re- suits in restraining the alien of his lib- erty, presents Judicial question for the decision of the courts, which may inter- vene upon writ of habeas corpus.
 That view, If sustained, would bring into the courts every case of an alien who claimed the right to come into the United States under some law or treaty. but was prevented from doing so by the executive branch of the government.