Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-04-15
AN EASTERN VIEW.

The New York Times concludes an
article on the Presidents veto of the Chi
nese bill, in which it approves the course
of the Executive, by expressing the con-
viction that when the first feelings of anger
have passed away, the people of the Pacific
coast will then take the same vieE. 1t
says: "But we are persuaded that when
"the first bitterness of the disappointment
"has passed, and less radical measures
for overcoming the Chinese evil are en-
"ployed, the Presidents firmness and wis.,
&c dom will be recognized. We do not
know what the Times means, or think it
means, by talking of less radical meas
cures" The Chinese bill which the Presi-
dent vetoed was not radical measure,
unless the treaty which it followed can be
SO characterized. We should like the
Times to tell the people of this coast, if it
can, why that treaty was framed, unless it
was intended to make possible precisely
such legislation as the President defeated.
That treaty provides for suspension of
Chinese immigration, and it leaves the
period of suspension to the United States.
The pretense that twenty years is not
reasonable period cannot be seri-
ously defended. 1t is precisely as
reasonable in all respects as fifteen, or ten,
or FIVE years. A ten years bill would not
be g less radical than twenty years bill.
And if "less radical means are necessary,
why was the treaty made: Does the
Times mean to imply that the people of
the East never intended to apply the pro-
visions of the treaty? Does it mean to H.
innate that the instrument was only blind
to deceive the Pacific States? II our es-
teemed contemporary knows anything
about the subject (which is doubtful, to
say the least) it knows that the Chinese
evil can only be dealt with effectually by
preventing the Chinese from coming to this
country. Any method I" less radical than
that will be useless. Ii, therefore, the
Times intends to suggest that the Pacific
States will have to be satisfied with some
protection which does not protect, it makes
a mistake, for the Pacific States, unfortu.
nately for themselves, understand this
question too thoroughly to rest content
with anything less than practical rem.
edy. The idea that the people of this coast
will at any period, however remote,
regard the late veto as a proof of
6: firmness and "wisdom " on the part of
the President, is, moreover, very sorry
commentary on the intelligence of our con-
temporary, since it involves the assump-
ton that the President really under
stands the Chinese question much better
than this community does, and that we
shall presently realize the superiority of
his information. Such comments as we
have here noted only go to show with
what an absence of sagacity and knowledge
the press of the East discusses this subject,
and how fatuously complacent it is in its
ignorance and stupidity. With these jour-
mails the experience of million of people
daring generation weighs less than the
hasty and careless congratulations of one
man who has no personal experience on
the subject. Yet it is this very obstinate
ignorance that we must educate away if
we are To conquer the relief we need