Mr. Adee to Mr.
Yang Yü.
Department of State,
Washington, October 10,
1893.
Sir: In further reply to your note of the 27th
ultimo, calling my attention to the arrest from day to day of
respectable Chinese laborers and their incarceration in jails in
California without being allowed to be relieved on bail pending their
appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, and requesting that
the attention of the Attorney-General be directed to this state of
affairs, with the hope that he may be able to discover some means by
which they may be allowed to be discharged
[Page 260]
on bail, I inclose herewith for your information
copy of a communication received from the Attorney-General under date of
October 2.
Accept, etc.,
Alyey A. Adee,
Acting Secretary.
[Inclosure.]
Mr. Olney to
Mr. Gresham.
Department of Justice,
Washington, D. C., October 2, 1893.
Sir: I have yours of the 29th ultimo,
calling my attention to a communication to the Department of State
from the Chinese minister, in which he suggests that the
Attorney-General of the United States may be able, by some methods
of his own and through the action of the United States district
attorneys, to cause Chinese persons to be admitted to bail for whom
writs of habeas corpus have been applied in the course of the
enforcement of the provisions of the so-called Geary law.
I have had several conferences on the subject with the counsel of the
Chinese legation, Mr. May.
The difficulty about admission to bail in the cases referred to is
the rule of the Supreme Court expressly declaring that, “pending an
appeal from the final decision of any court or judge declining to
grant the writ of habeas corpus, the custody of the prisoner shall
not be disturbed.” I have suggested—and I believe the counsel of the
Chinese legation agrees with me—that the only possible remedy is
through an application to the Supreme Court for a modification of
its rule.
Very respectfully, etc.,
Richard Olney,
Attorney-General.
