The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1879-08-08

concessions must bo clearly expressed. And
y y - not probahle u this case that i was in-
senaea ~ tRe treaty power 20 coneede All TIE
secure TO ita citizens for the price which r. il-
p.iea . IN the ext.avagant oonstrnetion given
np0n one side that Il was intonded TO secur 8
opportunities Tor American laborers 10 China
Esns OF this country FOR such privileges ~
China ,oyercTowdod with hundreds Of millions
gould ofier american industry; that the treaty
harEhinsd for the evils which threaten the
future OF bhs Pacific states In return Tor right q
residence 70 Amorlcang IN a country that can't
support ita own people. Nor IL " probable
power OF the states-tho right OF self-preserya.
ton OF which man cannot bo div0ated under
any form OF government or In any state OF 80
There ara no prenumptloua IN favor OF eon-
s.tuetion that makes the troaty 80 unreaHonas
eboiishes IN favor of Chinese subJecis that
honora5is s, diatlnet,on which = the citizens
OF the Government % maintain.
In the ease Of Ho An Kow W sheriff Nunan
videa for cutting the hair OF criminals is aps.
olal laglataaion for the reason that upon Chi.
unusual pnnishneni: that though general in
~ terms lt operates npon specific class with
long haiF g religious aud national custom
peculiar 70 that class.
lays down ths docfrine that sgss.i any eenaral
law bears with greater severity upon one class
lhhn upon othefns although the fact may be
due % the customs, peculiar views or religious
beliefs OF that class, such Law IL special iegfsIa
tion and void. Stated - broadly Ha the deeia-
Mormon sect VIII nnd ample guarantees Ia
the l4th amendment and = sect Teiigioualy be.
aside any state statute against homicide.
But the argument against the innietinn OF
cruel, csael ana m Unusual pnnlshmentA has 20 appll.
the decision upon the ordinances case ran have
10 more than remote bearing in their de-
Courts are never In haste 70 declare acts Of
tho Law making power void and tor that Fea-
treaty are susceptible Of two meanings, one
favorable % the law of ths state and the other
vail. 70 far a. this Court q eonsernsd the Law
OF the State against the employment of Chi
nese subjects upon public works will be en-
Il q further claimed on the demnrrern that
no laet OF injury or damage 20 the city has
been nllsgedi that lt must appear that wrong
u about to DO done and the fact aud character
OF the thFeatened iniury tnusi appear. Thls
point was fully considered by this Court Ia the
case Of the CITY W Perry Baker.
The party 20 contract has the right 70 de-
II the Court Is satisfied from staisr,en al OF the
grievances that the inInry thus defined IL likely
e rssnlt ana upon ~. ground ths snlnnetien is.
state law is void or not. Parties eontraetink
with each other may make such eoxenanis
aud agreements as they sec NJ aud unleas they
eeotEaSens the general policy they viii be en-.
IL Is further claimed that q Court viii not
grant an Injunction 20 enfoFco the negative
stipulAtiona IN an agreemenl unlcra u appeafs
thai the Affirmative allckntiona are such thai
the Court can ecidcaity enforce them. This
ls true WheFe the confederation for the mega
tive covenant OF the one part IL the Affirmative
covenant OF the other, which latter the Court
cannot specifically enforce.
The rule uPglieabls in these eases is thus
stated BY Mg. Hiltiard; when q contract con-
tains covenants % DO certain acta and also 20
ahsiain from doing certain other acts. the
the negative covenants. though thers may be
no Jufisdietion 10 specifically perform the
Affirmative covenants. tHiiiiaFd on inluue-
lions eft.l In . case whore person ugreed TO
write for q certain lheatcr and not 10 write
during the time for any other theatsF. Lord
..It appeared to me that the Court could en-.
writing for any other theaieF. The Court
sras a ssasr sa % e q S s only sSi slne
i ia power. Il Induced him indirectly 70 do one
thing by restraining him from doing Another
/ piets refnsdV ~ ia1r ~ trrafins I6s cantFaeia
- void and By proceeding ~ ainAt he eontFscs
tor for = violation Of the street ordinance; but
merely 10 atop Chinamen from working on the
streets. bat 10 enforce specifically the agree
menE. 30 far as tba Court has Jurisdiettons by
| enforcing the negative stipulation contained
/ ia II, The couFt cannot com pei tue defendants
/ 10 employ other iaborefa. but, in the Language
i Of Lord Eidon Just quoted. "it can DO fhe only
reetly 20 do one thing BY restraining them from
ants 20 proceed with the work with other
lAbofeFs, 80 fsr ~ u can do thls By restraining
The demursara are overruied and the iDJunc-
| ton IN sacn case will be made psrpetasl.
~ G. AoFetsnd and dibeT n. IaHiirr Tor the
James @. Chapman for defendants Yates and
join c1,ita for the descendant Hamilton.