122
THE GREEN BAG
the following cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and supporting the doctrine there laid down are cited: Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133, 18 Sup. Ct. 289, 42 L. Ed. 688; Richmond & A. R. Co. v. R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co., 169 U. S. 311, 18 Sup. Ct. 335, 42 L. Ed. 759; M. K. & T. Ry. Co. v. McCann, 174 U. S. 580, 19 Sup. Ct. 755, 43 L. Ed. 1093; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Call Publishing Co., 181 U. S. 92, 21 Sap. Ct. 561, 45 L. Ed. 765. The court holds, following the decision of the Supreme Court of Texas in the Dwyer case, that the statute in question is not a regulation of interstate com merce, and is a proper exercise of the police power reserved to the state, and is therefore valid. CHINESE DEPORTATION. (RETURN TO CON DITION OF SLAVERY* — THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WASHINGTON. A very novel and interesting application of the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment will be found in the case of United States v. Ah Sou, reported in 132 Federal Reporter, 878. It ap pears from the evidence that Ah Sou is a Chinese woman, sold into slavery by her foster mother in China, and illegally brought into this country by lier purchaser for immoral purposes. After living a miserable and degrading life, she escaped and took refuge in a Presbyterian home, where after a time she was married to a Chinese inhabitant of this country who was duly registered as a Chinese laborer. Deportation proceedings were subse quently brought, and the learned District Judge, upon appeal, takes up first the question as to whether by her marriage she could lawfully be entitled to dwell in this country. While she was legally married by a minister of the gospel, in compliance with the laws of Washington, it ap peared that the husband and wife had never lived together, and that it was doubtful whether the man had a very clear idea as to his status as the woman's husband. It was certainly open to sus picion that the marriage was arranged to give the woman the required status to enable her to remain in this country. The laws excluding Chinese immi grants and women imported for immoral purposes, require the court to cause the person to be de ported to China; but the court says that a com pliance with the statute in this case would, in his estimation, be a barbarous proceeding, for it would be equivalent to remanding the woman to perpetual slavery and degradation, and that it is shocking to contemplate that the laws of our country require the court to use this process to accomplish such an unholy purpose. On the other hand, it is proper to consider that as an
outcome of a bloody civil war the people of the United States by the thirteenth amendment, or dained that slavery should not exist in the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. This article is a part of the supreme law of the land by which all branches of the government must be controlled. It is a guaranty of liberty and a vital principle of our government, to secure which our people did not hesitate to sacrifice their most priceless treasures. It is not a mere ab stract theory of liberty, impotent when subjected to the test of a practical application to the case of a helpless victim of oppression, but a mandate from the highest authority requiring the exercise of all the force necessary for the protection of the liberty of any and every individual whose right to liberty is not forfeited by a conviction of crime. The court holds that an order of deporta tion would be equivalent to a sentence to actual slavery, and for this reason directs that the woman be discharged from custody. CONSPIRACY. (PROCUREMENT OF ARREST — FEES.) NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE Div. An amusing state of facts is shown in the case of People ex rel. Rice v. Board of Supervisors, 90 New York Supplement 318, and the plot which was concocted might well be used in modern cotnic opera. It seems that in the fall of 1903 an unusually large number of claims for fees in crimi nal proceedings were discovered when the town auditors were settling up their accounts. These claims were largely for the arrest of tramps and "rounders" as intoxicated or disorderly persons, and the frequency of the arrests, the character of the offence and the fact that a few of those ar rested were repeatedly apprehended upon the same charge gave color to the suggestion that some of them were fictitious, or else that an epi demic of drunkenness had broken out in the town. As the result of this astonishing discovery an in vestigation was ordered. Public sentiment ran high as the details of the plot were unfolded. It was disclosed that part of the constables of the town had entered into an agreement with certain tramps and hangers-on at the village tavern that they should be arrested, not as vagrants but as intoxicated persons, or on a charge of disorderlv conduct. The next step was to have them ar raigned before a justice of the peace, who had been taken into the confidence of the plotters, and upon a plea of guilty in each case, the pris oner was sentenced to the county jail. Quite a profitable business was worked up in pursuance of this scheme. By laying the accusation of in toxication or disorderly conduct, a fee of about
