The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-06-25
oun cHrxnsE PRopLEx.

gomery who are sought to De expatrint- ed under the blanket Chinese exclusion law serves to bring home to our own people some of the gross injustice ana inequaiities of that law and of the de- cisiens under 1t. The local cases call to mind some instances whish have oc- cured in other places. and brief ac- count of some of them may he interest," ing. The Boston Herali has this refer ence:
 In 1889 the Supreme Court decided the case of Chae Chan Ping vs the gnited States, generally known as the Eninese exclusion case. Chae Chan Ping re 1887 Under the treaty with China ana the laws of 1882 and 1884 he was entitied to return to China fol. visit and to return to this country. Taking .ggt this certincate he went home in isss and returned to San Francisco Oct. 8, 1888 Bgt just S week neiore the sw srsp rsp peaiinE the certificate privilege, ana Chae Chan Ping was refused admit tance and was. kept on board the snip to be sent back to China.
 The Chinaman sued out writ of habeus corpus and finally the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States on appeal. That body decided---Justice Field rendering the opinion---that the United States had the right, by statute. to withdraw the privilege of re-entering the country Coming from the highest legal tribunal in the Government. we suppose we must accept that as good law, but neither the Supreme Court nor any oshsr earthly tribunal can force us to accept it as strict justice. Would our Govern ment dare to apply such statute and such pulling to the citizens of any of the powerful nations of Europe? But that Is not solitary case. for there has been a quite recent one of exactly the same nature, thus briefly stated:
 Ju Toy, a native born citizen of the United States, having visited China and FetIrned to San Ersnsco h . ,scsdp Mas preSSsth port under the exclusion law. He ap- peafed to- the Secretary of Commerce, setting up his citizenship-the law. ot any any race % or coior-bbut his appeal was reflected The immigration authorities were not convinced by his evidence that he was in fact native-born citizen. i,
 In this case. also. writ of habeas corpus was sued out before a Federal District Judge, referee reporting to the court that Ju Toy was undoubtedly a citizen of the United States. Then the immigration. officials appealed to the Supreme Court and that body re- peated or affirmed the rulings given in the Chan Ping case. going little fur ther, however, and declaring that "the decision of the proper immigration of- flcer is final" No wonder Justice Brewer. in vigorous dissenting opin- ion. speaks of the decision as appalling. for 1t is all of that. It is. in short. a declaration from our highest court that there can be no appeal, no redress, no remedy for a victim after the immigra- tion officer has acted. It matters not how partial, how unjust or how hard that decision may be. the Supreme Court declares that the act of the of- ficer Is final and that no other power can change or reverse it.
 There are two typical cases. that of Fong Yue Ting. decided in 1893, being along the same line. As The Boston Herald says. "the injured foreigner cannot obtain redress for wrongs com mitted by the legislative branch of the Government" If this is true. 1t is the only law, so far as we know, which the courts cannot take cognizance of. and cannot correct wrongs committed ln- der it. It may be law, we repeat, but not justice. In the language os The Portland oregonian:
 The Federal Courts have placed on the peovisiaas of tho act most rigid fnteruretation, by which every appli- cant for admission to the United States Is denied absolutely the right of ap- decision as to the fate of any Chinese seeking to enter the country rests wholly with some waterfront inspector be assumed that these officers are try ing to do their duty. Their error lies l in their failure to discriminate between Chinese; but. inasmueh as they are sup less reel justified in erring, as they al- ways do. against the poor Chinaman.
 That is to say the courts, from the lowest to the highest, avow themselves subservient to Congress and will not render an opinion contrary to its will
 where a Chinaman is concerned, for that Is the meat of the whole matter To paraphrase an old opinion attributed to our Supreme Court: The Chinaman has no rights which the white man is bound to respect.
 | Is 1t any wonder that the Chinese Government and the influential citizens should resent such injustice. and that they should talk of retaliating in way
 that will seriously affect all American
 industries? If the ruling and eontroll- | ing powers over there should issue a
 positive and definite notice that China will absolutely cease to buy anything from the United States unless Chinese
 merchants, students, literati and other
 high-class Chinese are permitted to gC
 and come from this country without in suit, outrageous Interference and fre- quent imprisonment" what can we dc about 1t? We cannot pass law tc force the Chinese to trade with us, noi
 can we force our goods on them. IT short, they can cut off American trade and by such act entail loss of many
 millions of dollars on our people an nually--and no one could blame them.
 As we have heretofore said, our Gov
 ernment cannot be blamed for keeping
 out the vicious and criminal scum O.
 China, but it Is blamable for it's treat ment of the better class of Chinese wis
 itors. In a recent speech in Ohio. Sec
 retary Taft inquired If it is just that