The Test Case for Chinese Exclusion
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear the Chae Chan Ping case, the lives and property rights of Chinese laborers in Washington hang in the balance.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
WASHINGTON, March 27.—The Supreme Court will proceed to the hearing of argument in the case of Chae Chan Ping, appellant, vs. the United States. This case involves the constitutionality of the Scott exclusion act, approved by the President October 1, 1888. The facts in the case are as follows: Appellant is a Chinese laborer and a subject of China, and departed from the United States for China on June 2, 1887. Before doing so he obtained from the collector of the port of San Francisco the return certificate required by the Chinese restriction act of 1882. He returned to the United States October 7, 1888, and claimed the right to land, but permission was refused by the collector on the ground that under the Scott exclusion act, the certificate presented had been declared void and of no effect. Counsel for appellant contend that this involves a question of national and international importance. They argue that laborers who departed with these certificates were guaranteed by the treaty between the United States and China of 1880 the right to return, and without warning, this treaty was abrogated and vested rights were entirely swept away. The faith and honor of the government are involved. If the act is unconstitutional, the laborers may return to avail themselves of their rights; if it is valid, it is necessary that it be determined immediately so that those who have acquired property interests here may take some means of protecting these interests.
“The faith and honor of the government, they say, is also involved in the case now before the court.”
The Chae Chan Ping v. United States decision (1889) ultimately established the 'plenary power' doctrine, allowing the federal government to override treaty obligations and exclude individuals based on race—a legal precedent that fundamentally reshaped U.S. immigration law and remains a dark cornerstone of exclusionist policy to this day.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.