The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-02-20
r.tr a. TI.Ty 80 as
The Chinese Question.

Wv aAAthS5
The Chinese Question.
We are surprised to find that the Demo.
cratic papers Of the South are not .unatni-
nous in their support OF the bill to prevent
the State .oss.Calffornia from being ruined
BY the importation or immigration Of CHI
nese. We concede thatthe Republicans are
bound by their professions in the case OF the
negro to oppose any bill which recognizes
one race OF men as superior to another.
They have INDUCED in sentimentallsm about
the brotherhood Of man ~ until their
judgments seem to have become thoroughly
warped and unreliable. They are consist
emit, therefore, when they repeat the same
kind of .waddle in regard to the Monaghan
race. 1t is true that they thus prove them
selves enemies OF high civilization, adyo-
Gates of the spread OF the most desplcaole
Of customs, and traitors to their own race.
But rs the last two Of these were involved
in their action suhiecting the whites OF the
South to the domination Of an inferior race,
we need not affect to feel any surprise that
Republicans denounce even Mr.. BLAINE
for bis support Of the anti-Chinese bill.
WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON is furious In
his expressions OF dissatisfaction with
the conduct OF those OF his late al
lies who have gone over to the DEM
ocratic party on this question. He writes
as violently of them as in antc-belum DAYS
he wrote of the slave holders OF the South.
He would allow the country to be over
run by people who have not one single re-
deeming trait in their characters or Gus
toms, and whose presence would inevita-
bly, tend to the degradation Of the Canca-
SLAMS living upon this continent. We are
not sorry that GARRISON and the rest OF
them have thus proved that they are what
the southern people always charged them
with being foolish fanatics and pestilent-
agitators. lt
But whilst we admit that the Republicans
have ga record" 10 maintain, a decent re-
gard for which might impel them to oppose
any measure inconsistent with it, we cannot
but be surprised to find southern journals
siding with them. Here is the staid Alex
andria Gazette, one of the best papers in
Virginia, talking rs follows: ..n
"The Constitution Of the United States
saws that treaties between this and foreign
countries shall. be the supreme law OF the
land; but the Congress OF the United States,
like the two other branches OF the Govern
ment, has long since ceased to regard any
provision OF so obsolete an instrument as
that whicha few unsophisticated people.
still imagine to be the supreme law OF the
Union. The Senate last Saturday night
with the previous action OF the,
House in not only abrogating the Chinese
treaty, but i'm committing that act in so IN
suItinp manner, by giving China no Off
ciaI notice Of the proposed intention, that 1t
must provoke retaliatory measures. Why
NOT proclaim the utter abolishment OF the
whole Constitution at once, and be done
with the ridiculous prctence OF conducting
the Government 10 accordance with its pro-
visions?" -.
The Gazetle bases its opposition on high
constitutional grounds. Now, this sort OF
talk is not confined to the Gazette. We
have seen the sumo sort Of argument IN
other papers. It is founded upon the as
sumption that the anti-Chnese bill is I'M
constitutional-an assumption which was
shownlb Senator THURMAN, in his speech
on the subject, to be utterly baseless. The
Constitution says:
"Tbis Constitution, and the laws Of the
United States which shall be made in pur-
suance thereof, and all treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the authority Of
the United States, shall be the supreme law
Of the land and the Judges in every State
shall be bound thereby, anything in the
constitution or laws OF any State to the con-
trary notwithstanding.
To read the above is to see at once that a
treaty stands upon the same footing eX-
actly as an act OF Congress. Both are s'the
supreme law Of the land" until repealed or
abrogated. And Congress has therigbt at
any time, to repeal or abrogate any law or
any treaty. 1t is the "judges in every
State" who are bound not to disregard the
acts OF Congress and treaties-not Congress.
The prohibition applies to them, not to Cor
sress., Congress has over and over again
had treaties abrogated-generaly by giving
some previous notice to the other contract
ing powers, it is, true; but the giving Of
this notice did not affect it's constitutional
right to abrogate the treaties. This matter
Of notice is g mere question Of national
courtesy. $50. ~ - 80 !. -,