Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/740

 m EE AE caoNa. 733 �Ira re Ah Chong. �{Oireuit Court, D. Califvrnia. June9, 1880.) �Chinese Tkeaty — Constitution. — The statuts of Calif ornia prohibiting ail aliens incapable of becoming electors of the state from flshiug in the waters of the state violates the f ourteenth amendment of the con- stitution of the United^States, also articles 6 and 6 of the treaty with China, and is void. �Habeas Corpus. �Delos Lake and Thos. D. Riordan, for petitioners. �A. L. JSart, Attorney General, for respon dents. �Sawîee, g. J. Article 19 of the new constitution of Cali- fornia, headed "Chinese," in addition to the provisions referred to in Parrott's case, recently decided in this court, forbidding the employaient of Chinese by any corporation, or on any state, county, municipal, or other public work, also contains the foUowing provision : �"Section i. The presence of foreignera ineligible to be- come citizens of the United States is declared to be dangerous to the well-being of the state, and the legislature shall disoourage their immigration by ail the means within its power. Asiatio coolieism is a form of human slavery, and is forever prohibited in this state ; and ail contraets for coolie labor shall be void. AU companies or corporations, whether formed in this oountry or any f oreign country, for the impor- tation of such labor, shall be subjeet to such penalties as the legislature may prescribe. The legislature shall delegate ail necessary power to the incorporated cities and towns of this state for the removal of Chinese without the limita of sueh oities and towns, or for their location within prescribed por- tions of those limits ; and it shall also provide the necessary legislation to prohibit the introduction into this state of Chinese af ter the adoption of this constitution. This section ehall be enforced by appropriate legislation." �In obedience to the mandate of the constitution requiring �these provisions to be enforced by appropriate legislation, the �legislature, besides the act in question in Parrott's case, �passed three other acts: One on AprU 3, 1880, entitled �9* ����