The evening times., 1900-06-09

3, 1891, and therein, in section l, after
| speaking OF the character Of persons who
should be excluded from the United States.
II expressly declares :: Provided that moth
! ing in this act shall be construed 10 apply
10 or exclude persons convicted Of a po-
iltical offence, notwithstanding the said
! political offence may be designated as a
felony, crime, Infamous crime, or misde-
meanor involving moral turpitude, by the
laws OF the. land whence he came or by
| the court convicting him. II the record
on which the Government slies is correct.
| Fitzharris was charged with treason. Cul-
minating in an indictment for being the
accessory 70 a homicide after the fact.
Technically deffed and described, that
charge was Tad4elony, crime, infamous
crime, or mlsdemeanOr involving moral
turpitude by the flaws Of the land-to wit.
Great Britain, whence he came. and by the
court convicting him-to wit, the tribunal
IN Dublin. The manifest object of the one
who drafted this provision of the law was
TO create loDg5 a vivid hHe-of de marka-
ton between those who committed the or
/ dinary offences against the peace and in
terests Of society and those who were the
victims of political agitation, culmi-
mating. perhaps, in the technical violation
OF the laws OF the land There has been
no construction of this statute adverse TO
my views with which | am familiar, and
| how is il possible that this appellate tri-
| bunai can insist upon construction that
is manifestly against the sentiment of
justice2
! Misunderstanding: The respondents
below were entitled to a rehearing under
the law. II this appellate tribunal has re-
ceived the record of the Board of Special
Enquiry on the day on which counsel were
permitted to appear before it. and that rec
ord is correct one, it will appear that
counsel for the respondents first moved
10 dismiss the proceedings already had,
which motion was denied. He then moved
that the board direct the advocate for the
Government to proceed with the rehearing.
all of which the board refused to do. and
there was no rehearing-a right which be-
longed 10 these respondents under the
law A rehearing in law means a pro-
ceeding de novo where the testimony is
given. legal questions passed upon, and
proceedings had as though there had been
no previous trial. This rignt-this abso-
lutte right-was denied to these respond
ents. This appellate tribunal has the pow
CT to reopen the case on that point alone.
and If il fails TO exercise IL, il is respect
fully submitted that the result Will be
harsh and cruel 10 the rights Of these
respondents. and a cruciixiOn Of the. le-
gal interests. If no such record has come
up from the Board Of Special Enquiry. or
il can easily be established that the state
ment as TO the reheaTing contained IL his
memorandum is correct.
''Ninth-This appellate tribunal has the
right. aad il is its duty. 10 reopen this
proceeding and direct that evidence >
taken de noyo
"Tenth--It is clearly the proper CT
struction Of all the laws Of Congress rela-
tive to emigration that they are not TO
apply to persons who. not being conyic,s
at the time. or who. having received a
pardon from the Government under which
they lived. simply contemplate a short So
journ in the land at whose shores they
have arrived. That is this case.
''Eleventh-Al that has been ever urged
in support Of the view Of the Government
in this case is that the system which has
always been pursued in cases Of kindred
character has been applied in its operation
70 these respondents. This We know 70 be
inaccurate, because such men as Dayitt,
Easan, and DAILY we're allowed to land in
the United States unmolested, and without
hindrance on the part Of the Government
Why the distinction should be made
against these respondents is a question
that the future must answer, because il
is entirely ineompreheRsible to those who
are made aware, by these violent pro-
ceedings. OF its existence"