Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-04-08
The Yein Of ihe ChLnese Ban.


The St. Louis Republican is exceed
ingly severe on Mr.. Arthur for having
vetoed the anti Chinese bill. 1t claims
that he was not actuated by any princi-
pie of broad craftsmanship or patriotism.
but that he was frightened into his
course by the merchants of the East.
who feared they would suffer from the
loss of Chinese commerce. 1t further
claims that nothing else could have been
expected of Mr.. Arthur; that he IS not
a statesman, but is nothing more
than New York politician.
Hence it reasons that it would be look
ing for too much from him to have an
ticipated that he could have risen above
the wishes and desire of the capitalists
and merchants Of his State, and consulted
the welfare Of the West with broad,
comprehensive mind. II thinks that
Webster, Greeley, Seymour and that grade
of intellects would have been able to
have shown themselves superior to the
influence Of local interests and local de-
mands. and displayed true craftsmanship,
but that this was impossible Sin a politi
cal parvenue Of mediocre capacity"
As was to have been expected, the in
dignation in which our st. Louis con-
tempory thus INDUCES is universally felt
against the President throughout the
West, and it cannot be denied that much
of that which is asserted against him
contains a great deal of truth. Mr..
Arthur is certainly more of a local poll
tician and Republican partisan than a
statesman, and it may be that, as the
Republican alleges. ne was more influence
ed in his veto of the anti Chinese bill by
a narrow minded desire to promote the
commerce of New York and pander to
the selfish demands of New York mer-
chants than by any other consideration.
Nevertheless, it is but fair to give him
the benefit of every doubt in his favor.
That IS a privilege accorded to the mean
est and poorest criminal. and certainly
it should be accorded to the President of
the United States.
There is no doubt of the fact that Mr..
Arthur, in his veto message, treats this
Chinese bill in an apparently statesman
ike manner. He expresses the belief
that the bill is violative of the spirit if
not the letter Of our treaty with China,
in that its forbidding immigration from
that country for twenty years amounts
to absolute prohibition of such immigra-
ton, and not its regulation. as is provi-
ded for by the treaty. In this he is clearly
correct, and is not a subject of cen
sure. Again, he objected to the
bill on the ground that it would
tend to injure, if not destroy, our valua-
bic commerce with China, which
amounts to hundreds Of millions of dol
lars annually. In this also his position
is sound. 1t is absurd to imagine that
the Chinese Empire will look favOrably
upon our overtures for trade with it,
when We deliberately snub its people,
and declare that, though we have always
boasted Of being an asylum where the
oppressed of all nations may find re-
fuge and enjoy to the utmost the bless
iugs Of liberty and happiness, yet we
propose to cut off the Chinese from these
advantages, and while the peoples of
Europe and Africa, and other sections of
the globe, may partake of them freely.
the Chinese alone need not apply.
For this reason, and further because We
regard this anti Chinese bill as violative
Of the spirit of the United States Constl-
tuition, we believe that Mr. Arthur's veto
should be commended. The people Of
the Pacific coast may not be pleased at
the prospect Of a more extended Chinese
immigration, but they have no right to
complain if Mr. Arthur refuses to accept
their very modern doctrine that this is a
white mans government and that there
fore the Chinese should go. When the
South, few years since. earnestly pro-
tested against the enfranchisement of the
newly liberated slaves the people of the
West turned a deaf ear to her utterances,
and declared that all men were born free
aud equal, and bad a perfect right to
enjoy, without Partially or favor, all
the privileges which our glorious govern
ment could confer. They have no right
to complain now il the same argument
which they used then against the South
is now used against themselves. The
South can still, if it sees fit, maintain
that it was the intention of the
trainers of this Republic that this
should only be a white mans gov
eminent, but the Western States,
which helped to fasten negro suffrage
upon the country-and without whose
help it could not have been accomplish
ed-are debarrtd from consistently rails
ing a race issue, and demanding the pro-
scriptiOn of the Monaghan.