Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1879-02-27
TILE CHINESE BILL.

OF all the Eastern papers that have criti-
cised the Chinese bill, none have treated
the matter so calmly or so fairly as the
New York Graphic, and it gives some hard
knocks both for and against it.
By the way, it is a little singular that
the opinion Of the undesirability Of the
Chinese, SO generally held on the Pacific
Coast, is fully r~eciprocated in China.
With an exception here and there, all Chi
nese hate and despise foreigners, and wish
they would stay at home and not trouble
with their new-fangled morals the ancient
constitution and manners Of the Empire.
There seems to be a general impression
abroad that the President will veto the
bill. 1t is Thought that he regards it as an
improper mode of getting rid of our treaty
stipulations, and as insulting to a nation
In amity with us. There can be no ques-
ton that abrogating treaties by statute is
Objectionable, and may be resen ted as an
insult by the nation against which the
statute is leveled. But insults are, after
all, matters Of feeling. If tie Chinese au-
thorities are secretly in favor of this re-
strictive legislation, as is now claimed,
there is no insult. They are the only par
tiea to complain. The present Congress
may be taken as a fairly representative
body, and after thorough discussion in the
Senate body usually very jealous of its
prerogatives the bill was passed. If the
President sign it, both branches OF the
treaty making power in our Government
will have agreed to recede from the treaty;
and if the Chinese do not complain, no
else has the right to do SO.
Now it is q question whether if Presi-
dent Hayes vetoes this Till he will not add
fuel to the fame. Opposition to public
sentiment always intensifes it. The Presi-
dents opposition may at the most be able
TO delay the adoption Of these restrictive
measures for a few months. And the new
measures may be all the harsher by reason
Of the rejection Of the milder treatment.
It Is not to be denied that there is a large
body Of public sentiment in this country
against the principle Of the present bill.
The greater portion Of this sentiment is
based on q vague sentimentalism about
'.men and brothers." It is to be noted
that this watery dogma always breaks
down when put to the test. Nations can
not permit public policy to repose on gen.
eralities, however glittering. And we have
seen in this very debate or the Chinese bill
that the most reckless vendors of phrases
about "the man and brother" as the test
Of craftsmanship, have been compelled to
are natural differences between the races
Of men.
It seems that some Of the political
preachers have taken up the matter, not
as citizens, but as ministers of the gos-
pei. Priests and ministers of whatever
denomination are men and citizens, and
there never can be any objection to their
expressing their opinions ON political
questions as men and citizens, but there
are the gravest objection to them in their
official capacity intervening in current
political discussion. Why should the
Methodist minister Of New York. as Meth
edist ministers, protest against the passage
Of the Chinese bill, and appoint o COM
mittee to memorabilia the President
against signing it. Suppose Cardinal Nc
Closkey and Father Preston and DR.. Nc
Glyn, representing the Catholic Archdio-
cese Of New York, had protested against
the bill, what would DR.. Newman and his
colleagues say? Simply that the Catholic
Church was getting into politics. What
would be improper in Catholic ecclesiastics
il improper in Methodist preachers. If
ministers would attend to their special
business Of saving souls they would prob
ably have all they can attend to without
instruc ting the President and Congress as
to . proper discharge Of their political
functions.