, 1883-09-27
Doubtful Suggestion.
). +. BgLietiR.

.. r. BsttetsR.
1t will be necessary to organize a
legal resistance in connection with
the Chinese Restriction act None
OF the decisions, so far rendered,
nullifying the acts are final. The
shipmaster who proposes to be guided
by them will run very heavy risks.
The fines that can be imposed will
eat up q very large ship. Ii any of
the adverse decisions should be up
held, application can then be made
TO Congress for rellef.
The idea that We vail have to ne
gotiate a treaty with Great Britain
to kespher Hon z Kong Cinnamon at
home does not appear to be well
founded Congress has already COW
cred that subject by excluding Chi
Rsse from ANY foreign port" SeV--
sEsl of the Australian colonies have
excluded the Chinese without distinc
tion, and the British Government in
terposed no objection. England Will
not go to war with us if we should
exclude Cinnamon of the variety
stated. It will be found, we think,
on examination, that neither the
English nor the Chinese acknowledge
the nationality supposed to be con-
ferred by accidental birth on the
island in question. The Chinaman
himself would be the last to set it up,
for it would place him in the condi-
ton of foreigner who can only re
side IN the treaty ports, and cannot
travel beyond them without passports
which must be rised wherever he
goes -..s-...rs IT. 80. ...,-.., -..
The whole of this notification is
based on Judicial myth, which has
no real existence whatever. 1t is
thai high wrought technicality which
SO sftsn passes for law with US. 1t
is believed that it has not in some
cases been inspired by the highest
motives 4 desire to carry favor
with certain powerful interests is be-
yond doubt the moving cause. The
logical absurdities which are COM
mitted seem to be completely over
looked. Congress has excluded Chi
nese from aany oreign port" A
Court says that Chinaman born in
Hong Kong is az Englisman, and
that We must, therefore, let him in.
But he Is not an Enghshman. He is
the same pagan interloper whom we
are tryingto keepout. We challenge
proof that any OF this class claim to
be Engiishmen in Hong Kong, or are
acknowledged as such there. But
eysnzif tho .faeta were so, it would
have to be shown that we have con-
tracted an obligation to admit all
classes of persons coming from Great
Britain. Ne have excluded paupers
and criminals. Why, therefore, can
we not exclude Chinese if we are so
minded. The Chinese are more un-
desirable than paupe rs and criminals
The notion Of the necessity of a
tseakx NTH Great Bsitain does not
appear 10 be sounder than the other.
that ID Is impossibl for. US to deal
finally with the Chinese question
without an amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States. We
are supposed to be sort of polyp-
stomach and nothing else, which
must absorb everything that comes
along, no matter how indigestible.
How OK by what method we were
robbed Of our natural sovereignty
and condemned to the low condition
described is not explained Where
is the law. the treaty, or. the consti-
tutionsl provision which strips! the
American people of the power to ad-
NIT or exclude any class of persons
they like from their borders! If we
haysslost our sovereignty in that par
tiealaF, who has gotit? What nation
is our Suzerainf .4 I..r.
Many of the suggestions, like those
considered, are thrown out, and
most OF these notions are propa-
gated by persons who are inimieal to
Exclusion but dare notsay so. There
is not much chance of negotiating
any such treaty as that proposed |
with England, and there is no chance
at all OF securing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United |
Statea- But if the people could be
worked up to the belief that no eff
fectise exclusion can be maintained |
unless backed up by measures clearly |
the doors would be |
swung open again for the entrance of
the yellow foFagers. It won't do. |
The Golden Gate is sealed, and any
to open it by legal chicane,
or direct force, will raise storm up
on which some of the small men, who |
arc figuring In this matter, have not
rsckoned