The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1882-08-30

and also nom the fac, OF the constant la
biliiy cf such establishments 20 fires and
the consequent destruction Of adjoining
properties" 1T would be reasonable, Z"
say they, ito compel the supervisors, who
are better acquainted with these facts
than any Federal court or Judge
can be, to wait till a slaughter.
house set up in the denser part of the city
should prove a nuisance before they could
by ordinance prohibit il. The slaughter.
house would in fact, be less dangerous to
health, less promotive of deadly and incura-
BILE diseases, than the average Chinese laun.
dry is. Therefore, when his honor compla-
Gently asserts that such an establishment.
set up within the limits named in the ordi.
dance, is mot disturbing to the neighbor-
hood nor dangerous to the public health"
he speaks as one unacquainted with the
facts IN the case. And when he imposes
on the supervisors the duty Of directing the
manner to be changed If it does become
dangerous, he attempts the impossible.
The supervisors are not to be turned into
| committee of inspection and experts for the
detection ofleprous-b laundres aud
the regulation OF the manner in which the
dirty linen OF infected persons shall
be kept apart from the pluvia
tubs in which the clothes of other
people are washed indiscriminately
This has the appearance of very good argu.
ment, and would obtain additional force by
further similar illustrations, such rs the
driving of wild cattle through the streets,
and perhaps the prohibiting of traffic and
trade through quarantine regulations. 1t
will hardly be the safe thing to wait until a
nuisance or danger is actually upon us to
provide means for its suppression. But
after all, JuDGE FIELD may not be the party
to be thus ccnsured. He may have simply
ruled under the law as he finds it. And il
may be that there is an ordinance ia the
nature Of restriction on the free.
dom OF pursuit." and yet that ordi-
nance may be in contrayentlop
Of tho organic law. If this be So then
1t is the duty of the court to pronounce
1t invalid, the remedy for u grievance or
nuisance lying in another direction. To
abuse and assail in unmeasured denuncia-
ton a judge who merely applies the law is
unjust and baneful. The attempt or the
advice to disregard his decision is of that
species of notification that South Carolina
once unhappily undertook, and which to
the southern states not many years ago
brought such "dreful woes unnumbered.n
California disgraced herself not long since
on the occasion of PRESIDENT ARruuRs
veto of the 70 year Chinese Immigration
bill, and her rage and discomfort smacked
strongly of sedition. The attempt to pas,
the law to cut Off the queues OF the
Cinnamon there was equally fabulous
and disgusting. And now she turn,
her attention to insulting and
berating her judges on that same everlast-
ing theme, tho people to whom she is very
largely indebted for much of her present
growth and wealth. We have not heard
that Chinese laundries in this section of the
country are per sc 'nuisances." II any
particular one should become so, there is
adequate remedy to suppress II. The same
surely must be the case in California. ri
not, her citizens have acted curiously
enough in view of the possible contingency.
according to their own version.