The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1869-03-06

with that il seemed appropriate to make
brief reference to the other authorities,
relied upon by tho Governor. There
wero two opinions of Attorneys General.
Tho first by Writ, in 1924. For paper
emauating from that great man, it was
brief, apparently careless, aud unsound.
A reference to single sentence which is
the soul of the whole opinion, will show
that it is not sustained by the opinion of
the Supreme Court, in any case, "For the
regulation of Congress on this subject,
(commercc) is both supreme and exclu-
sive" 1t Is sufficient to say that the Su.
premo Court have since said that "this
right of the States (the right upon which
the Attorney General was then giving
his opinion) has its foundation in the sa-
cred law of self defence" &c.
The second opinion being that of At
torney General John Nj. Berrien, of date
1881, so far from sustaining the Cover
uor's veto, is Numerically opposed to it,
sustaining our position to the letter, aud
is in accordance with the decisions of the
Supreme Court just quoted. He says, in
speaking of the very same subject as
both Attorney General Writ, aud the Su-
preme Court, ''on the Contrary, | think
that such an act of legislation is, under
the circumstances which have supposed,
justifable exercise of the reserved pow
ers of that State, and ought to have eff
feet that Congress are under constitu-
tional obligation to respect it in the for
nation of treaties, aud in the enactment
of ld,cs."
The case of Brown vs.. the State of
Maryland. az Wheaton, relied upon in
the veto, in which license fee was i'm
posed for leave to sell unbroken packages
of imported merchandise, furnishes no
argument or authority against us. 1t
was tax for rerenue, deriving no sup
port from the police power of the State,
and was. Of course, unconstitutional.
The California case, reported in Cal
r., Of date Of January, 1857, grew out
of an act of tho Legislature of that
State, imposing tax of fifty dollars on
every person arriving in the State, la
competent TO become citizen. The
opinion of the Court throws no light on
this question. 1t occupies less than half
a page and is rested entirely upon the
decision in 7, Howard concluding that
the question arising in California was
settled in the passenger case. | claim
that such a judicial investigation of that
case as the argument of counsel and
its importance demanded, could not by
any fair course of reasoning, have brought
the Court to the conclusion arrived at.
The Passenger case relied upon By the
California Supreme Court, was establish
ed to be reUenuc measure; A; the States
of New York and Massachusetts, not hav-
ing manifested the slightest objection to
passengers entering the State. The per-
sons proposed to be taxed were free ghite
persons the very persons, by the natur-
alization laws, invited and entitled to en-.
ter the State aud enjoy all the r:;,;, r::;7;,e yus
of American citizens. But was this the
case in California Far from it. It was
the very reverse of the New York case.
California proposed by the tax to restrain
the immigration of persons not entitled
to become citizens of the United States
1t was not for the purpose of obtaining
revenue, but the exercise Of the soycr-
eign right to defend herself against n
class of people judged to be destructive
Of her best interests.
1t was therefore, the exercise Of a po-
lice power never ceded by the Constitu-
ton of the United States to the general
government.
While, from the nature of things, il is
often inconvenient to impress the public
mind with the idea Of approaching evil,
yet the rapidity with which the Congress
of the United States are advancing the
universal suffrage, citizenship, and quail
ifcation for Office, cannot fail to attract
the attention of the mass Of our breth-
ren who have made their homes within
the "Golden Gate"
Having established by the opinions Of the
Justice of the Supreme Court who pro-
nounced the judgment in the passenger
cases, as well as by those who dissented, that
the police pOlcer Of the state is superior
to any power granted congress, and espe-
cially that to regulate commerce, it only
remains to show that the act act ''to tax
and regulate Cinnamon, and prevent their
employment upon public works" is a po-
lice measure
AS was shown in the first number OF
this review, that the 31st section of the
first Article of the State Constitution,
empower the Legislative Assembly "To
restrain and regulate the immigration to
this state of persons not qualified to be.
come citizens of the United States
Therefore and inasmuch as by the natur.
alization laws, only free white persons
can become citizens of the United States
it follows that immigration of Cinnamon
may, so far as our constitution is concern.
ed, be regulated and restrained.
This provision of our Constitution,
based on the sacred law of self defense,
is the first act, and of the highest author
ity in the State, declaring it Objectionable
for persons not capable of becoming citi.
zens of the United States to enter the
State. In terms it is a police measure
and the act in question proposes to carry
it into execution. Bearing in mind the
class and description of persons to whom
the act is to apply, reference to few
of the general rules and definitions laid
down by the Court, such as that the
State may guard the morals, quiet, safety
health and lives of its inhabitants, and
provide generally against anything calcu
lated to introduce either moral or ply
sical pestilence, ought to leave no room
to doubt, as to the proper subjects O.
sovereign or police regulations. Still
we may go farther and name some of the
universally recognized subjects of such