Los Angeles herald., 1908-03-27
ARTICLE AROUSES
WIDE DISCUSSION
ATTORNEY DEFINES CHINESE
EXCLUSION LAW
Orientals Are Allowed to Testify in
United States Courts, According
to Supreme Judges Of
Land

Madame Caroline NJ. Severance's
timely article on Chinese exclusion that
appeared in Thursdays Herald under
the head of Casual Comment has
aroused wide discussion. Among the
communications containing Favorable
comments that have been received Is
the following criticism from the pen oI
Attorney F. s. wager:
LOS ANGELES, March 26.-t Edltor
Herald: In casual comment of March
26 in your paper. under heading Ihe
Chinese Must Co." appeared an excel
lent and interesting article from the
nen of Madame C. NJ. Severance, REFER
ring to the Chinese exclusion laws anu
our treaty with China, but mad
vertently in said article there was
slight error, which Mrs. severance mas
requested me to correct.
The impression was left from reading
the article that under our present
Chinese exclusion laws Chinese VIII
ness was not allowed to testify In our
courts as to the nativity of a Chinese.
This is mistake as Chinese witness
may testify in our courts that Chlnese
was born in the United States, put
often his testimony is discredited, ana
as the burden of proof is upon the
Chinese and he must establish by q
preponderance of testimony his right to
be and remain in the United States II
is a difficult proposition for him to 90,
especially since the great catastrophe
at San Francisco, when Chinatown was
destroyed and his witnesses and much
of his evidence scattered.
But. where a Chinese has been doing
business in any of the cities OF the
United States as a merchant and has
been permitted by our authorities to
visit China. on his return he must be
rrepared to show by other than Chinese
witnesses that he was a merchant.
Supreme Court Opinion
In the case of the United States VS..
Moey Suey. 147 Federal Reporter. 693,
it was so held, and in Won Loong VS..
United States, 149th United States re
MORT. page 629 In each of these cases
it was held by the supreme court OF
the United States that the Chinese eX-
clusion laws were constitutional ana
that the burden was upon the Chinese,
constituting section g. act May, 1893. In
one of these cases before the supreme
court of the United States Mr.
Choate, who was since ambassador to
Great Britain from this country
defended this Chinese, who had peen
a merchant in Chinatown, New YORK
city and who had been permitted by the
authorities to visit China, on his return
to this country was arrested ana SEN
fenced to deportation by the United
States commissioner and subsequently
by the United States district judge OF
New York city.
He showed and proved by Chinese
witnesses that he had been merchant
in New York city and had been per-
mitted to visit China, but was unable
to produce American witnesses. The
case was taken to the supreme court
of the United States on writ ol
habeas corpus by Mr.. Choate and the
supreme court of the United States in
a lengthy opinion affirmed the decision
of the district court and sent this SAM
merchant back to China. The court
held that the laws were constitutional
and that it was the political, not the
judicial power of the country to change
them, and 1t was up to the people to
saw whether or not such laws should
exist and be enforced.
Guarantees Chinese Rights
As the treaty of 1880 referred to by
Mrs. Severance in her article guaran-
teed to the subjects of China in this
country the same rights, privileges, i'm"
munities and exemptions as may be en-
loved by the citizens on subjects of the
most favored nation and to which they
are entitled by treaty, it is now up tc
the people of California to secure much
needed legislation and some whole
some notifications and amendments tc
the Chinese exclusion laws.
1t was the people of California Who
in 1882 caused congress to violate thai
treaty by having passed the first eX-
clusion law, and the subsequent amend.
ments have been still more harsh ano
drastic, until now it Is almost abso-
lutely impossible for Chinese to de-