Speech #530033243

I think only about 13.000 Chinese laborers out of something like 100.000 in this country. applied for certificates. not because they were not willing to apply. but because certain organizations in this country. which controlled the actions of Chinese laborers.. refused to permit them to register. Their excuse is that they were advised by eminent lawyers in this country that the act was unconstitutional. but every man who either institutes or defends a law suit is advised by eminent counsel in regard to the merits of his case. and if he goes into court and is unsuccessful. he must abide by the judgment and the decision of the court. and he has no remedy. By the direction of the Chinese Six Companies the Chinamen did not register. they defied the United States. and defied the law. they allowed the time to expire. and they are subject now to deportation for violation of the law. The Administration has made no determined effort to enforce the law. so far as it requires the deportation of Chinese laborers. but it has substantially come to Congress and asked for legislation to relieve the Chinese laborers from the effect of the violation of the law. and not only to relieve them from that. but to suspend all proceedings which have been taken or which are being had for the deportation of Chinese. As I said. if Chinahad relieved this Government from the necessity of backing squarely down from the enforcement of its own aiws. I should have had no objection to an extension of time for registration. Even now I have concluded to leave the question as to the attitude this Government shall take in regard to this matter to the Administration. and shall vote for the bill. The junior Senator from Illinois has found what he thinks is a great injustice to the Chinese people in the provision of the first section. that in case a Chinese laborer refuses during the period of six months allowed by this act to register he shall be taken before a United States judge and shall be deported unless he shall establish to the satisfaction ofsaid judge that by reason of accident. sickness. or other unavoidable cause he has been unable to procure his certificate. and to the satisfaction of said United States judge. and by at least one credible witness other than Chinese. that he was a resident of the United States on the 5th of May. 1892. It will be observed that this testimony of a witness other than a Chinese witness is not required when a Chinese laborer applies for registration within six months. it is not a matter affecting his excuse for not registering: the proof required is merely to the fact that he was in this country at the time the Geary bill became a law. He may prove. everything else and he may excuse his failure to register by Chinese witnesses. That might be a matter about which he might not be able to get white testimony. but certainly the fact that he was here at a certain date he ought to be able to prove by other than Chinese witnesses. I know enough about Chinese testimony to say that if he was not required to prove the fact by other than Chinese testimony there would be no use of requiring proof at all. because you can prove any fact you dhoose by Chinese testimony. and that my friend from California knows as well as I do. Some question was made by the Senator from Connecticut as to whether this act would relieve those Chinese laborers who had already been arrested and ordered deported under the Geary act. It will be seeirby reference to page 3 of the printed bill that it is providedThat no proceedings for a violation of the provisions of said section 6 of said act of May 5. 1892. as originally enacted. shall hereafter be instituted. and that all proceedings for said violation now pending are hereby discontinued. I have no doubt that the deportation of Chinese already ordered deported by the act would be considered as part of the proceedings instituted under the act of May 5. 1892. and that therefore such Chinese would be set at liberty if this bill should pass. The Senator from Illinois also found some fault with the latter part of the clause at the bottom of page 4. which requires the marshal of the district. in which t]e order of deportation is made. to execute the same. and provides thatPending the execution of such order such Chinese person shall remain in. the custody of the United States marshal. and shall not be admitted to bal. I do not think a writ of habeas corpus could be issued upon the application of a Chinaman who has been ordered deported. As a rule. the writ of habeas corpus is not issued to review the final judgment of a court of justice having jurisdiction of the party and the subjectmatter. and there can be no question about the court that is given jurisdiction of this poceeding. and there would appear to be no question about the jurisdiction over a party arrested and brought before it. I can not conceive that a writ of habeas corpus would be allowed by any court to reverse or to inquire into the validity of such a judgment.