In re Impaneling and Instructing the
Grand Jury.
26 F. 749 (1886)
(District
Court, D. Oregon. March 28, 1886.)
Conspiracy against Laws of United
States — Driving Chinese Out of United States — Rev. St. § 5336.
A conspiracy or agreement of two or
more persons to drive the Chinese out of the United States, or to maltreat or
intimidate them, with a view of constraining them to depart therefrom, is prima
facie a conspiracy to prevent and hinder the execution, operation,
or fulfillment of a law of the United States, namely, the treaties with China
of 1868 and 1880, and is an indictable offense under Rev. St. § 5336.
Deady, J., (charging grand
jury.) An evil spirit is abroad in
this land, — not only here, but everywhere. It tramples down the law of the
country and fosters riot and anarchy. Now it is riding on the *750 back of labor, and the foolish Issachar couches down to the
burden and becomes its servant. Lawless and irresponsible associations of
persons are forming all over the country, claiming the right to impose their
opinions upon others, and to dictate for whom they shall work, and whom they
shall hire; from whom they shall buy,
and to whom they shall sell, and for what price or compensation. In these
associations the most audacious and unscrupulous naturally come to the front,
and for the time being control their conduct. Freedom, law, and order are so
far subverted, and a tyranny is set up in our midst most gross and galling.
Nothing like it has afflicted the world since the Middle Ages, when the lawless
barons and their brutal followers desolated Europe with their private wars and
predatory raids, until the husbandman was driven from his ravaged field, and
the artisan from his pillaged shop, and the fair land became a waste.
The dominant motive of the movement
is some form of selfishness, and its tendency is backward to barbarism, — the
rule of the strongest, guided by no other or better precept than this: “Might makes
right.” This is not the time or place to inquire into the cause of this
condition of society. It may be the natural outcome of the modern political
economy, which, assuming that the conflict of private interests will produce
economic order and right, has reduced the relation between capital and labor to
the mere matter of supply and demand, and limited the duty and obligation of
the one to the other to the payment of the minimum of wages for the maximum of
labor on the one hand, and the getting the maximum of wages for the minimum of
labor on the other. But, whatever the cause, I have faith that the teaching of
experience, and the good sense and love of justice of the people, will find a
remedy for the evil in time. And in the meanwhile it behooves those of us into
whose hands the administration of the law and the conservation of the public
peace is [sic] confided to do what we can, wisely but firmly, to prevent
this evil spirit from destroying the material resources of the country, and
making any improvement in the condition of society, in this respect, still more
difficult and doubtful.
Lately, this spirit has been
manifesting itself in Oregon, by assaulting, robbing, and driving out the
helpless Chinese who are engaged among us at lawful labor for an honest living.
The excuse given for this conduct is that the Chinese are taking the bread out
of the mouths of their assailants by working for less wages and living cheaper
than the latter can. In other words, they complain of the industry and economy
of the Chinese as being beyond their competition. As we all know, this
statement must be taken with much allowance. True, the Chinaman is industrious
and economical, and he has the advantage of being temperate and faithful to his
engagement. But he demands and gets better wages here than white men in any
other part of the world, and, save in the matter of whisky and tobacco, he
lives as well and is as well clad as the bulk of common laborers anywhere. *751 But this outcry
against the Chinese as laborers is not new. It was heard from 30 to 50 years
ago, when the native mobs in our eastern towns and cities undertook to drive
out the comparatively “cheap labor” of Ireland and Germany, particularly the
latter, that was then crowding into this country and filling the places of the
slothful and shiftless. It is not necessary now to consider the right of a
people to oppose or put a stop to an undesirable immigration. For my own part I
have no doubt that the United States has the same right to prevent an
immigration within its boundaries, of people that it deems objectionable, as it
would have to repel an armed invasion by them. But this is a matter for the
whole country, represented by the national government, to decide, and not for
individuals or neighborhoods, or even states.
The Chinese now in this country are
here under the sanction of a solemn treaty with the United States, and any
attempt on the part of individuals, acting singly or in numbers, to expel them
by any threat, menace, violence, or ill usage is not only wrong but unlawful.
Our treaty relations with China extend over a period of more than 40 years. On
July 3, 1845, a “treaty of peace, amity, and commerce” was negotiated by Caleb Cushing,
on behalf of the United States. Pub. Treat. 116. By it the citizens of this
country were granted the right to frequent and reside with their families, and
trade, at the five ports of Kwang Chow, Amoy, Fuchow,
Ningpo, and Shanghai. On June 18, 1858, William B.
Read negotiated another treaty, in which the government of China agreed to
defend the citizens of the United States in China “from all injury or insult of
any kind.” Pub. Treat. 129. To this there was a supplement, on November 8th of
the same year. Pub. Treat. 137. On July 28, 1868, a treaty was negotiated by
William H. Seward, containing sundry articles in addition to the last one. Pub.
Treat. 147. By article 5 of this treaty “the United States and the emperor
cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his
home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and
emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from the one country to
the other for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents. The
high contracting parties therefore join in reprobating any other than an
entirely voluntary emigration for these purposes.” Article 6 provides:
“Citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China
shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, or exemptions in respect to travel
or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most
favored nation; and, reciprocally, Chinese
subjects visiting or residing in the United States shall enjoy the same
privileges and immunities and exemptions, in respect to travel or residence, as
may be then enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation.”
On November 11, 1880, another treaty
concerning “immigration” was negotiated. 22 St. 826. Article 1 of this treaty
gave the United *752 States the right to “regulate, limit, or
suspend,” but not to “absolutely prohibit,” the coming to or residence of
Chinese laborers in the United States whenever it was thought that their
residence here was contrary to “the interests” of the country or endangered
“the good order” thereof. Article 2 provided that Chinese, other than laborers
and Chinese laborers then in the United States, “shall be allowed to go and
come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights,
privileges, and immunities and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens
and subjects of the most favored nation.”
Under the concession contained in
this treaty congress passed the restriction act of May 6, 1882, (22 St. 58,)
suspending the coming of Chinese laborers to this country for the term of 10
years from the expiration of 90 days after the date thereof.
The significance of the stipulation
in the foregoing treaties with China, to the effect that the Chinese in this
country shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities that are
“accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation,” will be
better understood by a reference to our treaty stipulations with Great Britain
on that subject. By article 1 of the treaty of “commerce” with that country of
July 13, 1815, (Pub. Treat. 293,) renewed and continued in force by article 4
of the treaty of October 20, 1818, (Pub. Treat. 299,) and further indefinitely
continued by article 1 of the treaty of August 6, 1827, (Pub. Treat. 312,) it
is provided:
“The inhabitants of the two countries, respectively, shall
have liberty freely and securely to come with their ships and cargoes to all
such places, ports, and rivers in the territories aforesaid [of the United
States, and Great Britain in Europe] to which other foreigners are permitted to
come, to enter into the same, and to remain and reside in any parts of the said
territories, respectively.”
From this brief statement of the
treaties bearing on the subject, you will perceive that any attempt to compel
or constrain any Chinese resident of this country to remove from or to any
particular place, or to refrain from following any lawful occupation, or doing
any lawful work that he may find to do, is not only morally wrong, but contrary
to the law of the land. It is commonly known that during the past few weeks
gangs of masked men have, in the night-time, entered the houses and camps of
peaceful Chinese residents, engaged in useful labor at various points in this
vicinity, and, by serious intimidation and threats of personal violence, have
compelled them to leave their homes and work, and come to Portland. There is no
doubt but that this brutal and inhuman conduct is a gross violation of the
rights guarantied to these people by the national
government through the treaties aforesaid. Nor is there any doubt of the power
of congress to provide for the punishment of any person who injures, annoys, or
disturbs any subject of a foreign government, resident in any part of the
United States, contrary to the treaty stipulations with such government.
*753 The powers of
the national government, though limited in number and subject, are supreme in
their sphere. A treaty with a foreign power is the supreme law of the land; and congress
may provide a punishment for its infraction or the deprivation of or injury to
a right secured by it, as in the case of an ordinary law. Without this power,
the national government would be unable to keep faith with other nations. In
all our external relations the individual states are unknown. The government of
the Union or United States stands for all, and in this respect may enforce
obedience to its authority by the prosecution and punishment of individuals who
act contrary thereto.
The next question is, has congress
passed any law for the punishment of persons who, contrary to the treaty
stipulations, molest the subjects of foreign powers resident in this country?
So far as my judgment goes, the matter is not free from doubt. I am quite clear
that congress has not passed any act having this object solely and directly in
view. The reason for the omission may be that heretofore it was not thought
necessary, as each state could and would, in the ordinary course of justice,
furnish protection to all persons living within its borders. But this illusion
has been dispelled, and experience has demonstrated that unless the general
government furnishes the Chinese on this coast with protection, their treaty
rights may be violated with impunity. Section 5519 of the Revised Statutes is
broad enough in its terms to cover the case. This is section 2 of the act of
April 20, 1871, (17 St. 13,) passed to enforce the fourteenth amendment, and
provides for the punishment of persons who “conspire or go in disguise upon the
highway, or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving” any one
of “the equal protection of the laws,” etc.
But in U.S. v. Harris, 106
U.S. 629, S. C. 1 Sup.Ct.Rep. 601, the
supreme court held that this section, as regarded the inhabitants of a state
simply, was unconstitutional; that the
prohibition of the amendment, as to “the equal protection of the law,” was
directed against the state, and not individuals, and therefore congress could
not, by way of enforcing such amendment, provide for the punishment of
individuals who commit such acts. Notwithstanding this decision, it has been
suggested that, although this section is unconstitutional as an act to enforce
the fourteenth amendment, it is valid as an act to enforce treaty stipulations
guarantying a foreigner, living in any state, the protection of the laws
therein. The suggestion is a plausible one, to say the least of it, but I do
not feel confidence enough in it to adopt it.
Section 5336 of the Revised
Statutes, which is also carved out of section 2 of the act of April 20, 1871,
(17 St. 13,) to enforce the fourteenth amendment “and for other purposes,”
provides that —
“If two or more persons, in any state or territory, conspire
to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the United States,
or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof; or by force to *754 prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of
the United States; or by force to
seize, take, or possess any property of the United States, contrary to the
authority thereof, — each of them shall be punished by a fine of not less than
$500 and not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment with or without hard labor
for a period of not less than six months nor more than six years, or by both
such fine and imprisonment.”
This section has nothing to do with
the fourteenth amendment, and there is no doubt of its constitutionality. It
was copied into the act of 1871, aforesaid, from the act of July 31, 1861, (12
St. 284,) “to define and punish certain conspiracies” against the United States
of a seditious or treasonable character. And the only question now is, does it
include the acts or conduct under consideration?
Speaking only for this occasion, and
reserving my final judgment until I may hear the matter fully argued, I think
it does. The attempt to drive the Chinese out of the country, or to maltreat or
intimidate them with a view of constraining them to depart, is prima facie an
attempt to prevent and hinder the execution, operation, or fulfillment of a law
of the United States, namely, the treaties with China of 1868 and 1880; and a conspiracy or agreement of two or more
persons to engage in such conduct may, for that reason, be well characterized as
a seditious and treasonable conspiracy against the authority and laws of the
United States.
A mere assault, or even robbery,
committed on a Chinaman, without any ulterior purpose other than a desire to
vex and annoy or to steal, may not be a violation of this section. Prima
facie such conduct is not intended to prevent the execution or operation of
the law of the United States giving the Chinese the right to reside here
indefinitely. But when, as I have said, the purpose of the conduct is to expel
the Chinese from the country, either by direct deportation or such intimidation
or violence as is likely to constrain them to go, I instruct you that the case
comes within that clause in the section which makes it a crime “by force to
prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”
Some cases will be submitted to you
by the district attorney of persons charged with mobbing and driving out
Chinese in this vicinity who have been held to answer therefor before you. Take
these cases and examine them carefully, and, if you find that any of the
parties have maltreated, menaced, or intimidated the Chinese for the purpose or
with the intent to compel or constrain them to leave the country or to remove
from any place therein, it will be your duty to present them to the court for trial.
Trusting that you will do your duty
in the premises, and that you will, according to the obligation of your oaths
and your duty as citizens, present things truly as they come to your knowledge,
without fear, favor, or affection, I commit the matter to your hands.