The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-07-02
UNITED STATES
JU TOY, cHlNAMAN

There Is mucl, discussion in the news
papers and elsewhere of tho Chinese boy-
Colt Of American manufactures and or
our stringent Immigration laws as they
pertain to Cinnamon. Tho boycott, 1t is
admitted, Is a result OF our given laws
concerning the entrance OF Cinnamon Into
this country. In viewo of tho present dis
cussion tho following resume OF tho ceie-
prated case OF the United states VIZ.
Ju Toy will be interesting. It Is taken
from the Chicago Inter-Occan:
Since the question OF Chinese exclusion
has assumed It's present acute phase. a
good deal Of attention has been paid
to the Supreme Courts decision In the
case of Ju Toy. the Chinamnn who claims
American citizenship by virtue OF his
birth In this country, ana who nevcrthe-s
less was not permitted to return to the
United States after Visit to the Celcs-
/. tla Empire.
Justice Brewers vigorous dissenting
opinion has been quoted and referred to
with the warmest approval. One leading
paper said that the court had converted
tho Chinese exclusion law into law
for the exclusion OF Americans. and
ex-Secretary Foster, In the independent
says that the decision adds another to
tho long list Of acts OF an unfriendly
SaaSS dPoil kuS ~ ~
pointed, to by traders with China US ono
OF the facts that arc responsible for the
actual or proposed boycott Of our goods
In that immense market,
What was the issue in the case?
What Is the scope OF the decision which
Justice Brewer, describes as appalling
'.Ju Toy. native-born citizen Of the
United States. having visited China and
returned to San Francisco, WAS pre-
<rox Ia Is,,r j,,, a I'D of
the port under the exclusion law. He
appealed to the Secretary OF Commerce,
setting up his cItiZenship-the law CT
course. does not Apply to citizens of any
race or color-but his app al was re-
jected. The immigration author.t es
We're not convinced by his evidence that
he was in fact u nativc-bcrn citizen.
"'rhcreupon he applied to the Federal
District Court for wr t OF habcas
corpus and obtained favorable decision,
Il referee reporting to the court that tie
petitioner was undoubtedly n citizen Tot
the United States. From that Judgment
the immigration authorities appealed In
their turn. and the Supreme Court re-
ycrsed the district Judge and upheld the
action OF the executive officers. On what
grounds?
Simply on the ground that under the
exclusion law the decision OF the proper
INN grafton officer is final. In o.eer
words, there could he no adjudication OF
tho question OF citizenship by the courts
after the order of exclusion. no rel eff
through the writ OF habcas corpus. The
petitioner demanded due process Of law,
but the court held that due process OF
law does not in every case involve q
judicial trial.
Thus the case turned upon the nlean-
Ing OF due process of law, land In effect
SUSTAINED the cxclus on law In making the
Inc1Sinng of INN offfCora
final.
THE wisdom. the exped oncy of the
provision was not passed on. and could
not have been, Ex-Eecrciary Fo ter sug-
gests that perhaps the urt acted on
the principle that the best way to Sc
cure repeal OF Il bad law is to enforce It
strictly. Congress is at liberty to amend
! the law and give excluded aliens or citi-
zens mistaken fer aliens the right OF
| appeal"