Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-03-08

ter before the Supreme Court of the United
States, where it was decided that the agree
ment was unconstitutional, as the insurance
company had no right to stipuate away It's
natural privileges, and accordingly held that
the proceedings under the State law were null
and void. The Legislature then repealed the
franchise of the company, and the matter
again came before the United States Supreme
Court, which decided that the State pos
sessed the power to repeal any charter which
it had granted, and that the reasons which
prompted it in doing SO were not subject to
judicial inquiry.
2. The right of California to repeal the
charter of corporation includes the right to
modify or amend it.
8. The Legislature can pass Acts to cripple
every corporation created under the State
laws.
4. This right of the Legislature is not sub
ject to revision by any Court.
8. The Act iu question, which prohibited
corporations from employing Chinese, was
based on this fundamental principle, and was
a legitimate exercise Of the reserve powers OF
the State.
6. The right of corporations to employ Chi
nese Is not a natural but an acquired right,
by virtue Of charter, and consequently falls
within the reserved power of the State. Cor
poratinns are not Obliged to assume an exist
ence. Ii they do not like the terms ON which the
Sta te offers them existence. thsy can decline
to 60 luto or continue in business.
z. The law under consideration Is not
directed against the Chinese, but against COR
o at IS, and counsel and Court have no
night to inqdiie into the motives Of The Legisla-
lure in passing the law, nor is its constitu-
tionality Affected because 1t indirectly pre-
vents Chinese from working for cOrpOratluns
g. Any State law conflicting with the Con-
stitutlon OF treaty of the United States must
fall to the ground but the declaration of the
treaty that Chinese should be entitled to all
the privileges and inuunities of citizens OF
the most favored nations is not intended TO
deprive States of their powers to regulate
their Internal affairs unless so expressly
stated. Employment by corporations is not
a right guaranteed to Chinese by the Treaty,
which comes within the question of the right
of the State to regulate corporations.
THE COURT,
By Judge Sawyer, said the Attorney-General
had wholly Ignored one side of the question.
If the corporations alone were concerned, his
arguments mi ht be unanswerable, but while
in restricting the powers of these creatures of
the State the Legislature did not perhaps
trench on the Federal Constitution, the States
prohibition of Chinese labor affected class
of rights which, according to the counsel for
petitioner, were created by treaty and guar
anteed by an amendment to the Federal Con-
The case was then continued until II
O'Clock Monday forenoon.
REMARKS.
It was evident that Mr.. Hart felt he had
no case, and was merely endeavoIing to make
the best of the situation by going off on a side
issue and ignoring the real points of the ques-
ton. He also sought to help himself out by
ignoring the natural rights which corpora
tons possess in common with natural persons
and assuming that all their rights were ac-
quired, without arguing the question as to
whether debarring the Chinese from employ
ment is in violation of the treaty and Consti-
tutional obligations. judges Sawyer and
Hoffman several times interrupted Mr.. Hart,
calling in question his propositions, and to-
wards the close of his argument Judge Saw
yer, in explaining some points quoted from
the Insurance cases, incidentally completely
knocked the whole bottom out of Mr.. Harris
This was followed by quite
lengthy discussion between the Court and
counsel regarding the extent of control
State can exercise over corporations, which
seemed to clearly foreshadow the decision of
the Court.