Speech #530022836

At that time. according to the Census Reportof 1890. the Chinese population of the United States was 106.688. Of this number 95.477 were located in the Pacific States and Territories. and the residue were located in various cities of the United States. That act made it the duty of all Chinese laborers within the United States at the time of its passage to apply to the collector of internal revenue of their respective districts within one year after the passage of the act for a certificate of residence. and any Chinese laborer within the limits of the United States who failed to comply with the act. or who. after one year from the passage thereof. were found in the United States without such certificate of residence. was ordered to be arrested and deported from the United States After the passage of the act of May 5. 1892. known as the Geary act. prominent representatives of Chinese persons in the United States employed Messrs. Choate. Carter. and Ashton. three able and experienced attorneys. to examine and render opinions on said act. Each of these attorneys rendered opinions in which they declared the act of May 5. 1892. repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. Their opinions were watched for with much interest by Chinese persons within the United States. and they exerted a great and controlling influence with them. Immediately after the expiration of the time allowed for registration by the exclusion act of 1892 there were three writs of habeas corpus granted by the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York upon petitions of Chinese laborers arrested and held by the marshal of the district for not having certificates of residence under section 6 of said act. In each case the circuit court. after a hearing upon the writ of habeas corpus and the return of the marshal. dismissed the writs of habeas corpus and allowed an appeal. On appeals in these cases from the circuit court of the United States in and for the southern district of New York. five of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States held (three of the justices dissenting and one b3ing absent) thatUpon careful consideration of the subject the only conclusion which appears to us to be consistent with the principle of international law and with the Constitution and laws of the United States and with the previous decisions of this court is that in each of these cases the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the writ of habeas corpus is right and must be affirmed.