The Grit-advocate., 1904-05-20
BARS ANARCHISTS
MUST LEAVE UNITED STATES.
Supreme Court sustains immigration
Authorities in Ordering Deporta-
ton Of an English Anarchist.

tion Of an English Anarchist.
Washington. May lin an opinion
| to-day by Chief Justice Fuller, tho
United States Supreme Court sust aimed
the action OF the immigration authori-
ties at the port of New York in order
Ing the deportation of the Englishman,
Turner. alleged to be an anarchist.
The opinion upheld the law for the
exclusion of anarchists. and affirmed
the decision of the Circuit Court for the
southern district of New York. which
refused writ of habeas Corpus for
Turner.
Chief Justice Fuller in his opinion
first reviewed the facts in the case, in
Guiding the case of Turner that he Is =
lecturer on sociological questions. and
that his counsel contendeL that he was
an anarchist in theory merely Ha
then referred to the fact that Turner'S
counsel attacked the immigration ! aW,
as unconstitutional on the ground that
it is "cOntrayenion of the first fifth
and sixth amendments and also of sec
tion one of the constitution. and be,
cause no power is delegated by the con-
sttution to the general government
over alien foreigners with reference TO
their admission into the United States
or otherwise or over the beliefs of cit
izens, deniZens. sojourners or aliens or
over the freedom of speech or of tho
press
All these contentious were negatived
by the decision of the chief justice.
who said. among other things;
whether rested on the accepted
principle of international law that ev-
cry sovereign nation has the power, az
inherent in sovereignty and essential
no self-preservation. to forbid the en-
trance of foreigners within its domin-
ions or to admit them only in such
cases and on such conditions as it may
see fit to prescribe, or on the power to
regulate commerce with foreign ma
tiOns, which includes the entrance or
ships, the importation Of goods and
the bringing of persons into the ports
OF the United States the act before
us is not open to constitutional ObJer-
ton. Nor is the manner in which Con-
gress has exercised the right, although
when such a case arises the objection
may be taken"
The chief justice also expressed tho
surprise of the court that exception
should be taken to the law on the
ground that it Is obnoxious to the con-
siilutlonal provision prohibiting the
abridgement of freedom of speech. tho
exercise Of religious privileges, etc.
1T has" he said. no reference to an
establishment of religion, ror does it
prohibit the free exercise thereof nor
ahridge the freedom of speech or Of the
press; nor the right Of the people to
assemble and petition the government
for redress or grievances. 1t is, or
course true that If an alien is not per-
mtted to enter this country, or hav-
Ing entered contrary to law is ex-
PEELED, he is in fact cut off from wor-
Shipping or speaking or publishing or
pettiOning in the country, but that Ia
merely because of his exclusion there
from. He is not one of the people to
whom these things are secured, and
does not become such by an attempt
forbidden by law, To appeal to the con-
stltution is to concede that this is a
land governed by that supreme law.
and as under it the power to exclude
has been determined to exist, those
who are excluded cannot exert the
rights in general obtaining in land
which they do not belong as citizens
or otherwise.
Discussing the plea that the law
SnOulu not De dppllCdDle " III iti pt-
cause he was not an active anarchist.
Chief Justice Fuller said:
Even if though Turner, if he did
not state to the immigration board or
inquiry, only regarded the absence OF
government as political ideal, yet
when he sought to attain it by advocat-
ing not simply for the benefit of work
ingmcn, who are justly entitled to re-
pei the charge of desiring the destruc-
ton of law and order. but at any rate
as an anarchist, the universal strike,
to which he referred and by discourse9
on what he called the legal murder of
1887 referring to the Spies case and
by addressing mass meetings on that
subject in association with Most, We
cannot say that the inference was un-
jUsttiabe either that he contemplated
ultimate realization of his ideal by the
usc Of force. or that his speeches were
Indictments to that end.
In conclusion the chief justice said:
I'VE are not to be understood as
deprecating the vital importance OF
freedom of speech and the press, or
suggesting futile limitations on the
spirit of liberty, in itself unconquer-
able. but this case does not involve
those considerations. The flaming
brand which guards the realm where
no human government is needed stll
bars the entrance, and as long as hu-
man governments endure they cannot
be denied the power of self f.preserva-
ton as that question is presented
here