Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-08-19
TIE CHINESE QUEaFIoN AND TIE PRESS
OF BAN FRANCISCO.

TIE CHINESE QUEagIoN AND THE PRESS
OF SAN FRANCISCO.
The war of secession was precipitated
through the preponderance of local over
national loyalty in the Southern States.
The South Carolina Notification had the
same origin. Prior to 1865, however, the
relative weight Of state and national obi.
cations was not conclusiveIy determined.
Since the close of the rebellion and the
adoption of the constitutional amendments
this question has been res adjudicata, and
there is no excuse for any attempt to ele.
vate state above national sentiment. Yet
in the face of this fact the press of San
Francisco, without distinction of party, has
for years encouraged and approved the
most barefaced endeavors to ignore, ira.
| verse and override the Constitution of tie
| United States and the laws and treaties
made under it, In connection with the Chi
nese question. The Legislature of the
State has repeatedly been required to pass
laws which were on their face so strongly
antagonistic to the organic law of the ma.
ton that their invalidity was obvious to
the nearest capacity. Nothing was more
certain than that each and all of these dis
eliminating enactments would be declared
unconstitutional 60 soon as the Courts
passed upon them. Nothing was clearer
than the duty of the Courts to pronounce
them invalid. And yet the press of San
Francisco has never hesitated to assail with
the most rnmeasured denunciation the
Judges who have performed their plain
duty. Unfortunately it is not difficult to
discover the animus of this policy, but it is
assuredly not easy to discover the wisdom
of it. To abuse Judges who merely apply
the law to the cases before them is alike
| unjust and irrational. 1t is most unfair to
the objects of such vituperation, seeing
that they have no option. 1t is most use.
less, seeing that the authority of the ma.
tional Constitution will unquestionably
continue paramount, no matter what Sec
tional opposition is made to it.
1t would seem to be the duty and func.
tion of a self.respectipg and high-minded
press to uphold the organic law, and when
ever that law is sought to be evaded, to
point out clearly the limits of possible
State action. No good results can flow
from any other course. Journals which at.
tack Judges for simply performing their
duty, and accuse them of improper bias
because they do not recognize the lawful
ness of enactments which an unprejudiced
schoolboy must know to be in contraven-
ton of the Constitution, can only infame
the passions of the ignorant, and create in
the public mind sentiment incompatible
with loyalty to the National Government.
And it should be plain enough that the
creation of such sentiment can issue in
nothing more practical and useful than the
exhibition of impotent rage and discomfort,
such as disgraced the State ON the occasion
of President Arthur's veto of the twenty.
years bill. Demonstrations of that kind
cannot effect anything. On the contrary,
they cause the public opinion of California
to be regarded as altogether unreasonable
and even seditious; and they ALLEVIATE the
sympathy of conservative and thinking
men all through the country. No lawyer
of any reputation, for example, would
venture to deny the soundness of Judge
Fields recent decision on the so-called
laundry ordinance. But the San Francisco
press has treated that decision as though,
instead of being simple application of
wellestablished legal principles, it had been
an arbitrary and despotic opinion, traceable
only to some secret spring of malice in the
mind of the Court.
Nor is this the worst of the matter. The
journals referred to could not take Judge
Fields argument as it stood, and controvert
it, go they one and all misrepresented and
garbled it, and acclaimed fiercely against
positions which the Court had not taken.
To what practical end was this course pur-
sued? 1t appears to us that it could only
mislead the most ignorant. Intelligent
men would be sure to read the decision Of
the Court for themselves, and when they per-
ceived that the papers had SO misconstrued
its tenor, they would be very apt to con.
clude either that the able editors were pre-
ternaturally stupid, or very unscrupulous.
Insulting and berating Judges is in truth a
very poor policy, when it is clear that they
have done no more than their duty. If it
is the purpose of the San Francisco press
to create public opinion in favor of multi
fcation, it becomes possible to comprehend
the policy pursued. Even in that case,
however, it remains impossible to perceive
the wisdom or saneness of the policy.
California is an integral part of the Union,
and must SO remain. Her people must
obey the national Constitution and the
treaties made under it. Il is completely
useless for them to think of disobedience
In this connection. The passing of uncon-
stitutional laws and ordinances, such as the
queue and laundry ordinances, can effect
nothing. All such enactments will be de.
clared invalid by the Courts, and will have
to be abandoned as soon as tested. And
considering how many lessons of this
kind the State has already received, it GER
tainly seems nothing less than fatuous to
persist in such attempts to do unlawful
things.
The San Francisco press, however, does
not appear to posses the moral courage to