IN RE LEE SING.
361
be unlawful for any Chinese to locate, reside or carry on business within the limits of the city and county of San Francisco, except in that district of said city and county hereinafter provided for their location." It further provides that "within sixty days after the passage of this ordinance all Chinese now located, residing or c.arrying on business within the limits of said city and county of San Francisco, shall either remove without the limits of said city and county of San Francisco. or remove and locate within the district of the city and county of San Francisco, And again, section 4 provides that herein provided for their "any Chinese residing, locating. or carrying on business within the limits of the city and county, contrary to the provisions of this order, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, 15hall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding six months. Upon what other people are these requirements, disnbiliti,es and punishments imposed? Upon none. The obvious purpose of this order, is, to forcibly drive out a whole community of twenty-odd thousand people, old and male and female, citizens of the United States, born on the soil, and foreigners of the Chinese race, moral and immoral, good, bad, and indifferent, and without respect to circumstances or conditions, from a whole section of the city which they have inhabited, and in which they carried QJ} all kinds of business appropriate to a city, mercantile, inailUfacturirig, . and otherwise, for more than 40 years. Many of them were born there, in their own houses, and are Citizens of the United States, to all the rights, :and privileges under the constitution and laws of the United States, that are lawfully enjoyed by any other citizen of the' United States. They all, without distinction or exception, are to ,their homes and property, occupied for nearly half a century, and go, either out of the city and county, or to a section with prescribed limitR, within the city and county, not owned by them, or by the city. This,besiaes against the Chinese,and unequal in its operation as between them and all others, is simply an arbitrary confiscation of their homesulld property, a depriving them of it, without due process or any process of law. And what little there would be left after abandoning their homes, and various places of business would again be confiscated in compulsorily buying lands in the only place assigned to them. and which they do not own, upon such exorbitant terms as the present o\\'ners witli the advantage given them would certainly impose. It must be that or nothing. There would be no room for freedom of action, in buying again. They would be compelled to take any lands, upon:any terms, arbitrarily imposed, or get outside the city and county of San Francisco. . That this ordinance is a direct violation, of. not only, the express provisions of the constitution of the United States, in several but also of the express provisions of our several treaties with China, and of the statutes of the United States, is so obvious, that I shall liot waste more time, or words in disctlssing the matter. To any reasonably and well-balanced mind, discussion or argument would be wholly
" <,
.362
FEDERAL RliiPORTER,
vol. 43.
.superflu?us, minds., whicq,!lre so that ''tWe .ilivalIdity of thIS ord1l1ance IS not apparent upon InSpectIOn, with the of the and laws cIted,' or argumentw,6uld be useless. '. The to pass within any police state. See, Pw'tQ1j, 11 Sawy. 472, 26]j;ed. Rep. 61.1; In re Ah Fang, 3 Sawy. t75; Inre QtuYnU Woo, 7 Sawy.531, '13 Rep. 22,9; Wo 118 U. S. 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; HbAhKow v. 552 . . Let'thii'ordetb'e adjudged to be void, as being indirect conflict with the treaties; and statute,!!, of the United States, an,.d let the ,"
.. ft' : .'.
,
1
MONTGOMERY·' tl.TOWNSHIP OF, ST.' ;MAnY's. ':1: 1
'
j
!;
;. '., ';
; i. '. ;, r I 'I
·:
I
CHADBOURNE'V. SAME.'
'" r -'
.),: . L
H :,,
t',,(C(rlJ'U4t Courl,D. Kamas. Aug1l.st. 80;1890.)
requires boMs issued by a township to be "signed by the · by town clerk; t.ownship J:jonda " Aot Invalidated by the fact ,tlll't name of the townshIp ,trustee was signed " " for l1iili bY a thtt'll: person, itt his'presenoe.8nd at. hIs t.'he bonds beIngsllbf.' apd.eer:tUled. Bud t.he intereet. paid,t.!Ier80nby the town, .; ..' '., ;, I
' ... ;.; . . .
."
' ..'.'
"':Attdwl, ,',. ',' ,. ". ;
, &;
i
¥drtin .:'-.:-:',
Keeler"
:'
the deThe facts pf CREle, are follows: On tqe .1\ugqst,. 1871" its bonds in tne sum '0($4'O!000, due in 20 years,at 10 per cent.,mterest, payable to the' Bridge ManUfactory and Iron Warks, for the purpose a bridge OVeI' the Kansas said township. 'attached for the semi-annual interest, and these ,actions are ',' .'l'Jij) defendant the .or ,were '. made or. py townShIp or ,Its Qf,J,n. Downing, town'snip trustee, arid Alva lIigbee, township clerk. The facts in .reference to, and issue of th,e b.opdsaJ;e as The bridge was bW.lt. by..the.tow ....n.· . ,t.h El .. !".,e. . p.repa.red,. with tHe ofPcers! to the elt! of 1882, of the bndge Jenlthis.; .and Ja!11es.p., was (){ and of townJ