The Global War on Anarchism

324 : diplomatic history
the anarchist exclusion legislation and argued that within the territorial limits of
the United States, constitutional guarantees should apply equally to all persons,
regardless of nationality. 125 The appellee’s brief refused to engage First
Amendment issues. James Clark McReynolds, the assistant attorney general handling
the case for the Department of Justice, insisted that earlier Chinese exclusion
cases had already affirmed the power of Congress to expel any and all classes of
aliens. 126 In his peroration, McReynolds declared that
An awful experience forced our lawmakers to conclude that the presence of
alien anarchists in the United States would be contrary to the public good, and
in that opinion the vast majority of law abiding, enlightened American citizens
undoubtedly concur ....
To exclude from a land, governed by law, those aliens whose mission in the
world is to defend the action of the fiendish individuals who threw bombs
among Chicago policemen who inspired the murder of a President [sic], and
who preach the religion of assassination, is rather a mild precaution against men
who seek the destruction of what all true Americans hold essential. Prudent
proprietors do not entertain in hospitable security strangers whose declared
purpose is to burn down the house which protects them ...An alien with a
leprous mind is certainly less entitled to generous treatment than are such
unfortunates as “idiots, insane persons, and epileptics,” all of whom are
barred from entry.
The policy of the United States, long and well established, is to exclude aliens
whose presence it believes would be peculiarly baneful. There is nothing important
in the present case which is new, and no substantial ground is perceived
for the alarm expressed by counsel, who declare (Br. 98), “If anyone doubts that
civilization and liberty are upon a treacherous foundation, he only need recur to
the spectacle of the law of 1903.”
I submit that, in the opinion of this court, anarchy is manifestly opposed to
both civilization and liberty and neither would be endangered by its
extinction. 127
On May 16, 1904, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld Turner’s deportation
and found that all issues connected to due process had been dealt with by the
Chinese exclusion cases. 128 The court ruled that the 1903 act did not infringe the
First Amendment because congressional authority extended to excluding any alien
for any reason. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice M. W. Fuller held that
125. Appellant’s Brief, Turner v. Williams, Supreme Court, Oct. Term, 1903, No.561,
102–103, in Hong, “The Origin of American Legislation,” 13. For his description of the
Turner case, Sidney Fine relies on United States ex rel John Turner v. William Williams, Brief
and Argument of Appellant (Chicago, IL, 1904).
126. Appellant’s Brief, 16.
127. Appellee’s Brief, ibid., 17.
128. Turner v. Williams, 24 S. Ct. 719 (1904), 723.