Rensselaer Republican, Volume 16, Number 4, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 October 1883 — THE CHINESE. [ARTICLE]

THE CHINESE.

Justice Field Decide Again* the Right of Hong Kong Chinamen to Land in This Country. rhe Question of Treaties Ignored by the Decision, WM*h Is Parefy Judicial. fSan Francisco Telegram.] Justice Field aqd Judge Pewyerhsve rendered their decision in the habeas corpus rase of Ah Lung, who, in hi* petition, admits being Chinese -by race, language and color, also a laborer, but, having been torn in Hong Kong, he claimed’ to be a British rubject, and that as such he did not come May 6,1884 Judge Field and Sawyer, in reviewing the case, find that the answer to the question depends upon meaning of the act, and not upon the Government to which the petitioner owes allegiance; that It waa not to be presatoed that Congress Intended to disregard the requirement* of the treaty, or to abrogate any of Its clauses Whether the treaty has been violated by one Government in ita legislative departments so as to afford a proper occasion of complaint by the foreign Government is not a judicial questionto the conrto. It is simply the case of conflicting laws between the act of May, 1882, modifying or superseding a pnor treaty. The court then proceeds, reviewing at length causes which ted to the agitation of the Chinese question, the appeals from white laborers of all classes to the Government which resulted to tha supplementary treaty of 1880, and the subsequent restrictive act of May, 1884 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 exclnde 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 ot Chinese laborers to the United States, without any limitation of the country from which they might have come, la 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. Ihe second section makes it a misdemeanor punishable by tine or imprisonment or both for the master of a vessel to knowingly bring into the United States on his vessel and land or permit to be landed any Shinese laliorers from any foreign port or place. The language in these sections is sufficiently broad and comprehensive to embrace aili Chinese laborers without regard to the country of which they may be, subjects, and the twelfth section declares Mat 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, Loth 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 tiie prisoner must be denied, and he muiit be returned to the &blp from which he was taken, and it is so ordered ”