, 1882-04-21
As To That Chinese Question.

Agreeable to promise made last week,
we now proceed to full hearing of
those irate laborers at Port Discovery,
who seem to think We have done Amer
icap laborers injustice. Under date OF
April 10Th, Mr., Edward P. Johnstone
writes as follows:
"A large meeting was held here last
night by the working men Of this place
to express their Indignation at the false,
malevolent charges you brought against
the American laborers OF the United
States and published in the ARGUS OF
the 7th inst. You accuse us of being
drunkards and gamblers, vicious and
worthless, while you write of the vir-
tues of the 'Heathen Chinee' in man.
ner to exalt that favorite subscriber OF
yours above the common American Ia
borer' who OF course never subscribes
for newspaper"
We pause here to remark that il our
correspondent will kindly point out
the exact language wherein we accused
American laborers as whole, OF being
'drunkards and gamblers, vicious,
worthless" &C., we will retract such
statement; but until he does, there is no
use in discussing the matter. We never
made such charge, and the gentleman
is isaccusing us wrongfully, to begin with.
Secondly, we have not been exalting
the Chinese above American laborers in
general, except in few particulars, of
which more hereafter. AS to the argu'
ment implied that we ought to abuse
Chinese and exalt Americans simply be-
cause our subscribers are from among
the latter, we will say that such ideas
run upon a very narrow track, to say
the least. We have not been champion
ing the Chinese, except to see that they
get simple justice--a thing which they
do not get in the prejudiced discussions
among the bulk of American laborers
on the Pacific coast. Our friends should
remember that the Chinese are not nec-
e3sarily entitled to no credit marks sim
ply because the indignant laborers at
Port Discovery accord them none. Be-
cause q particular course or line OF ar
gument is popular, it is not NECESSARILY
just. Many politicians and editors on
this coast are afraid to say what their
knowledge and Judgment dictate on the
Chinese question, simply because pop
ular prejudice to which they desire to
pander is so strong against the hea-
thens. This is true OF both political
parties, hence the discussion is almost
entirely one-sided. We are not blind
to the fact that Chinese immigration to
the Pacific coast has reached point
where it ought to be stopped. In places
it is interfering seriously with many
kinds of skilled labor, and impoyerish-
ing the country by sending a great deal
OF coin to China. The Chinese govern
ment has recognized this fact, and has
agreed by treaty that we may prohibit
the further importation of Cinnamon
for reasonable length Of time. Con
gress passed bill prohibiting such i'm
portation for the period of twenty
years. President Arthur feels that such
a prohibition would be unreasonable
according to the language Of the treaty,
and consequently violation of that
treaty by us--hence his veto. He says,
and with good grounds, that we could
stop this immigration by a ten years re-
striction clause, and get the treaty still
further modified or take such other
steps as seemed necessary between now
and ten years hence. His first duty,
however, was to keep the pledged faith
OF the nation inviolate. The literary So
ciety at Port Discovery discussed the
question and proved to the satisfaction
OF its members that the recent bill
should have been signed. 1t is easy to
set up a man of straw and knock him