Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 36, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 October 1883 — THE CHINESE. [ARTICLE]

THE CHINESE.

Justice Field Decides Against the Bight of Hong Kong Chinaman to Land in Thin Country. The Question of Treaties Ignored by the Decision, Which Is Purely Judicial. [San Francisco Telegram.) Justice Field and Judge Sawyer have rendered their decision in the habeas corpus case of Ah Lung, who, in his petition, admits being Chinese by race, language and color, also a laborer, but, having been born In Hong Kong, he claimed to be a British subject, and that as such he did not come under the provisions of the exclusion act of May 6,1882. Judge Field and Sawyer, in reviewing the case, find that the answer to the question depends upon the meaning of the act, and not upon the Government to which the petitioner owes allegiance; that it was not to be presumed that Congress intended to disregard the requirements of the treaty, or to abrogate any of its clauses Whether the treaty has been violated by one Government in its legislative departments so as to afford a proper occasion of complaint by the .foreign Government is not a judicial question to the courts. It is simply the case of conflicting laws between the act of May, 1882, modifying or superseding a prior treaty. The court tnen proceeds, reviewing at length causes which led to the agitation of the Chine -e question, the appeals from white laborers of all classes to the Government which resulted in the , supplementary treaty of 1880, and the sub- ; sequent restrictive act of May, 1882. The | decision concludes as follows: “ The act of Congress had a double purpose It was to carry out certain treaty stipulations with China, and also to exclude Chinese laborers coming from any part of the world. Its framers knew, as we all know, that the island of Hong Kong would pour Chinese laborers into our country every year in unnumbered thousands unless they also were covered by a restrictive act So the act declares in its first section that during the period of ten years the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, without any limitation of the country from which they might have come, is suspended, and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having come, after expiration of ninety days to remain within the United States. The second section makes it a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment or both for the master of a vessel to knowingly bring into the United States on his vessel anddand or permit to be landed any Chinese laborers from any foreign port or place The language in these seo ions is ’ sufficiently broad and comprehensive to embrace all Chinese laborers without regard to the country of which they may be subjects, and the twelfth section declares that any Chinese person found unlawfully within the United States shall be removed therefrom'by direction of the President to the country from whence he came. “Our attention has been called to a recent , decision of Judges Lowell and Nelson, of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, in which a different conclusion was reached by them. Those Judges considered that the act of Congress was simply intended to give effect to the stipulations of the supplementary treaty. Undoubtedly that was one of its objects, but it is very evident, both from the circumstances under which it was passed and from its language, that it had a still further object The construction which we give renders all its provisions consistent with each other. The whole purpose of the law to exclude Chinese laborers from the State would be defeated by any other construction. “The release of the prisoner must be denied, and he must be returned to the ship from which he was taken, and it is so ordered.”