Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-08-24
THs MASSACHUSETTS CHINESE BEsERI0-
EI0A DECIsIoE


The decision OF the Massachusetts Court
o5aeerling the Chinese Restriction Act, 70
l2r as it ear be gleanad from the tele-
graphic reports, amounts to this The ex.
oluaion Act which we acquired the right to
pass and enforce under treaty with China
oonceding that right, in the face OF pre-
vioug trssly which did not recognize i, re-
fora to the exclusion Of Chinese iabo rs
who a7s aubjec5s Of China, The poti-
tioncr before the lisssachusetts Court was
not subject Of China, but OF Great
Britain; he was resident and probably
was born in HongkoDg, which is British
colony. Therefore, az he ia not 3 subject
d the Emperor Of China, the restriction
bin does not apply 20 him. From the
ayaopsia Of the opinion st hand is is inn
5ossibis 50 Determine whether the Court
'means TO 60 to tho extent Of saying that
Chinese who sze merely noa.resideats Of
the Chinese Eqpire sTs not included IN tho
Restriction Act, or whether it is meant that
oa.y Chinese who are absolved from ale
o.a.se 10 the Chinese Government, and arc
under the jurisdiction Of and amensble to
losally different power, are not to be ex-
oludsd under the Act. Bat either case "a
had enough. The decision may be a strict
Interpretation Of the le.ter Of the Law, but
81 IS certainly opposed to It's spirit as IN
lgEstood h cur people. Il may he that
sao eAanot exclude she BOngkong Chinese
without negotiating a new treaty with
England, but if 90 chat must be done,
viii be remembered that at the time
Of tho pasesza of the restriction bill this
very difficulty vas iorsseen aud 90 ggested
go likely 70 sriao, bus no attention waz
plid to is. nac5 i5 could in no way sfsot
STE BIZ a. ii che objections iaken were
ga35 treaty with England would be
nacsasaty in order 90 exclude the Hong
kong Chinese, unisss we ignored the
fsth ee should keep with England
SLOW jaaging from the synopsis fur.
nisiej o. tHe dsGsion. we are led 70
believe tas. ths C5ars Las properly
iaterrrate3 tie law When ne passed tho
Restriction A5s as d.i SO by virtue Of the
nghs gained l43ar tfeasy 20 DO SO without
violation oi go7d faith with China. II it
Is for moment admitted that It would
have been wrong to pass sny Law 30 ex.
olads the people Of nation with
whon We had treaty to which such
lay would be opposed, then We
admit thss new treaty WITH
EagIsnd ia necessary before we can pass an
act 20 exclude such Chinese as are her sub
iesss The whole question .1gns upon TIE
stasrs Of the Hopgkong Cinnamon under
Eaglish law. i they are 81 English sac,
ssss, aud in 70 way sIaenable to the
Chinese Government, then obviously the
Conrt Is correct in its decision, and there
has happenad precisely whas vas feared
long ago, sass tbs Chinese would make
noagkoag a shelter port from which to
ooEla to tbis country IN spite Of She RestFic.
AtaA 4AIAs 4tA4 70 AScA ANf 4Ss-ua tt44b NftaAA-
tonese coming to Hongkoag to chip for
California are thereby exemp5 from the
operation Of tie Restriction Act.
It vii not prohs ne particle to lose CIR
temper aad abuse she Courts n thia mss-
Ter. The deeiaion Of Circuit Cont IN
biAsasebEsetts does not Of necessity Settls
shs lay. Fae decision Elust stand upon
its swn bottom, snd if reason and the rules /
81, law Tor the Interpretation Of statutes I
aus asin it, We auss sabnis. All talk about (
resisting sac lay % sbsurd. we do not /
want The Chinese here we wsnt The re-
sErigtion bin 20 have $ fair srial; fit is
detective ge nust tlka ths nssrszt and
qpicksst route to its correction, re do
rot believe shs Chinamaa 20 10 5azifsble
to orr system Of aoaissyf lie
saages bseome ons Of uai his isealsy fsr
, sriialing Rh err aystam Of cieiliza-
s5p Is lie aiaiaan g PosibiIiie sad his