Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1882-03-14
THE VOTE.

III WI
The San Francisco Stock Report takes
this bipartisan" view Of the Senate
vote on the anti Chinese bill /:
Notwithstanding the fact that a Repub-
lican Senate passed the Chinese bill, tine
Bourbon Examiner persists in asserting
hat Hoar and Dawes reflected the senti-
ments Of the Republican party on the
Chinese question. The assertion is as
silly as it is reckless. The bill was drawn
and introduced by Miller Of California, q
Republican, and ably advocated by other
Republican Senators. For q newspaper to
attempt to create the belief that a measure
framed and introduced by q Republican
Senator and passed by q Republican Sen.
ate is not a Republican measure, but mai
the credit for Il belongs to the Democrats,
is to insult the intelligence Of its readers
This is about as cool a piece OF soph-
istry as could have been looked for even
from our sprightly contemporary, the
Stock Report. Senator Miller's bill was
introduced first. That was all. Every
other member from the Pacific Coast had
a bill prepared and ready for introduce
tion, covering the same anti-Chinese
ground. But with Mr.. Miller and all
the other Senators from the Pacific Slope
this question is a home issue, and OF more
local than national interest. That they
should be vigorously in favor OF the bill,
whether Republicans or Democrats, is a
matter Of course. With the single ex-
ception of interested Senator Brown
every Democrat voted in the affirmative.
If this does not indicate the sympathy
of the Democratic party with the white
Iaborer, what would? The presumption
is unavoidable that the sentiment OF the
Democrats on this question is national.
Jnasmuch as all but one of them voted
in the affirmative, the conclusion Is In
evitable that as a party the Democrats
are opposed to Chinese immigration.
With the exception Of Fair and Farley
their votes were cast without the bias OF
local prejudice; hence it is not violent to
presume that they, too, being Democrats,
would have voted for the anti-Chinese
bill on general party principles. 1t is
legitimate, also, to presume that the Re-
publican Senators from the Pacific Slope,
had thew not come from this locality, in
which the anti Chinese sentiment is
universal and bipartisan, would have
followed the trend of their party, which
is to consider the interests of the masses
from the standpoint of the rich and
aristocratic, to allow the Chinese, for the
sake of their vile, cheap labor, to crowd
our working people to starvation for the
temporary aggrandizement of a little
crowd of "money bags" who are al
ready too rich and overbearing for the
good of the country.
There is no significance in the fact that
Republican Senator Miller introduced
the anti Chinese bill. He merely got the
start of his colleagues, by an hour or a
day, perhaps. That he is more jealous,
in the premises, than they, without re
gard to party, is not to be supposed.
Their own interests as politicians, to say
nothing Of their personal opinions other.
wise, would make them active to secure
anti. Chinese legislation, in order tc
recommend themselves to their con-
stituency. The vote on the passage Of
the bill il the crucial test Of the stand Of
the two parties. Without the feeling Of
local prejudice, or bias Of home inter.
ests. but on the broad principle of sym
pathy with the toiling masses, the
Democrats. almost to o man, voted to
save this country from the inroads Of
Chinese coolies. This is what is meant
by 20 to Is. The people understand it,
all the bright sophistries Of the Repub-
lican press to the contrary notwithstand.
ing.