Speech #510044193

Then has not Congress a right to attach a penalty to that refusal? Is not that a crime defined by the statute and does not a penalty naturally and properly follow? Therefore it was provided in the bill as it passed the House that the penalty that should attach to that crimeperhaps crime is too harsh a wordto that misdemeanor or offense. or whatever it may be properly called. should be in the alternative that the Chinaman so offending should be either removed from the United States. deported to the country whence he came. or that he should be imprisoned in a penitentiary. not for five years. as stated by the Senator from New York. but for a term not exceeding five years. giving a very large discretion to the court before whom he might be brought. He might be imprisoned under that section as it came from the other House five days. or one day. for that matter. and still meet the requirements of the law. although it is true he could be. at the discretion of the court. imprisoned for five years. which I think myself is harsh. and I am in favor of reducing it. Therefore I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the chairman of the committee. because it takes away the discretion of the court to deal too leniently by subjecting him to an imprisonment of one day. which he might do under the bill as it passed theHouse. and yet takes away the discretion that might run riot in the other direction by imposing imprisonment to the extent of five years.