Sacramento daily record-union., 1883-09-11
4BE CUE DECISION.
Card from One OF the Counsel gngag ged
IN the case


Card from One OF the Counsel Bnga ged
IN the case
The following correspondence gives its
own explanation, and relates TO q decision,
concerning which much is beinr said
EDITOR PosT The following letter was
handed 80 the Call foE publication, but,
after OBTAINING it for ten days, that paper
declined to publish it. Will you please in
sert it in the Posti Very respectfully,
j. L. NCELRATH.
CUTTING OFF THEiR CuRs notwithstanding the
dee sion of Justice Field delivered in the United
Sites Circuit Court of California that It was un-
lawful to cut off the cues Of criminal Cuinamen-
though that course is pursued toward criminal white
men-the New Jersey authorities take different
view Of the matter. Five OF the Mougols were coz
victed at Paterson Of an attempt to murder one Of
their countrymen laundTyman because he washed
for lower wages than is prescribed by the Chinese
standard, and sentenced to one year each IN the
State Prison. The rule of the New Jersey State
Prison, the same as in California IS 10 cut the hair
of all conycts close When the shears in the hands
OF the PRISON official raised to perform this
duty the Chinese offenders, they broke out in pa
thetic lamentations but the prison officer i'll
exor BILE, and their cues had TO 60 Il this connec-
tiOn il may be stated that when girl sent TO the
House of Correction in this city her hair cut Gloss
off the same that Of the male offenders includ-
ing Cinnamon, Notwithstanding Juoge Fields de-
csiOn. IL difficult 10 why the penalty Of the
violated law should not be visited the same on
ChinameL on white people. Ii to wear cues be
part of their religion and badge OF national hoDor
the argument might serve in China; but the laws Of
this country passed without reference to the
Chinese code, and are euforc with equality that
knows, or should know, no distinction between
criminals on account Of complexion or race.
SAN FRANCISCO, August IS 1888
The Editor of the Call | find the
above in your paper Of this morning. ION
evidently suppose that Judge Field has de-
cided that the State cannot provide Tor
cutting off the cues of Chinese who are
convicted of criminal offenses. when they
are sent to prison. Similar statements are
frequently made by other papers. Now. l
was counsel in the celebrated cue case. and
and let me say to you that Judge Field
never decided anything yen impute to
him. For many years the Judge has de-
clined to mske any correction OF newspa-
per attacks upon himself or his opinions,
however untrue. He has not attempted
TO correct this one. L-t me tell you what
he did decide: The cutting of the
cues of the Chinese, as ordered by an
ordinance of the Board Of Supervisors,
was presented to him in two aspeots-irst,
as a punishment second, as a sanitary
measure.
!. As a punishment, the Judge held that
/ the. Supervisors could not add TO that
which the State had prescribed for 4 viola
tiou of the cubic air law, which vas fine
or imprisonment. The Supervisors thought
that they could add to it the emitting off Of
the oues, and that that would inspire the
Chinese with such terror rs 80 induce
them to pay the iiues imposed rather than
suffer imprisonment, which would dis
charge the fine at the rate OF ewo dollars a
day. This the Judge held could not be
done by the Supervisors. They were not
invested by the Legislature e any such
power. The legislature Il undoubs-
edly have authorized is Dat had not
done so.
.. As q sanitary measure the Judge held
that under the law then existing, 1t was
not for the Board Of Supervisors to pre-
scribe what regulations should be adopted
for the health Of the prisoners sect TO jail,
but for the Board of Health. This latter
body alone could prescribe the necessary
sanitary measures.
The Judge went further, and considered
the measure as one directed especially
against the Chinese. The whole records
OF the Supervisors, the communications Of
the Mayor, and the debates Of the mem
bers, showed that the measure was intend.
ed solely for the Chinese and not for all
persons. The ordinance directing it wss
called the cue ordinance. IL was not en-
forced against others. II was directed and
enforced solely against the Chinese. Con-
temporary history is always admissible to
show the object of legislation. l. is only
In that way We limit the general terms
used in the legislation Of the South when
slavery existed. With statutes dCclsriDg
the equality of all men, slavery could not
otherwise have existed tor a day.
The cue ordinance, considered in the
light of the history attending its passage,
was treated as special legis alton on the
part of the Supervisors dir cted against
class, and as such the Judge held it was
prohibited by the fourteenth amendment
of the Constitution, declaring that no
State shall deny to any one the equal pro-
lection of the law.
When some years previously 70 this &c.
cision Mayor Aivord vetoed an ordnance
directing similar treatment Of the Chinese
all the city paperR, including the B0iietia
Alta and Gail. and papers throughout the
country, almost without exception, ap.
proved Of it on the same grounds as those
upon which Judge Field bassd his de.
clslOn.
A law, though general in its terms,
which operates with respect to a practice
inoffeusive in itself, with exceptional se-
verify upon a particular clsss, and is
adopted specially TO reach them, when it
In no manner interferes with the comfort
or convenience Of others, can hardly be
called law sffording equal protection.
a law compelling Jews TO eat pork would
operate with exceptional cruelty upon a
class, and not the less 40 because applied
generally. The cue of the Chinese Is his
badge Of honor, and the pleadings 10 the
cue case stated that its preservation was
with them a religious duty.
The decision OF Judge Field 10 no re-
spect denies the power of the State over
criminals, or their discipline in prison, and
it Is an error TO so represent it. It. has re-
ceived, IN an elaborate review, the COM
mendation Of Judge Cooley, the distin-
guished writer on constitutional law. He
says that "when the law imposes q pun.
ishnent which only certain class of per.
sons, because Of peculiar but innocent hsb-
its, sentiments or beliefs, can feel, and i'm.
poses it for the avowed purpose of affect.
ing this class, IS others are not effected. il
seems plain that not only is the equal
protection OF the laws denied TO the class.
but that they are directly and purposely
subjected to the pains and penalties which
others of different habits, sentiments or
beliefs are never expected to feel.n lam.
Law Reg, Vol. Is, page 6SD. Judge
Campbell, lately of the Supreme Curt Of
the United States, also approves the de-
cision, and so do ell the present judges of
that Court.
am very respectfully yours,