Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-04-20
PRESS EXPRESSIONS.

The Cincinnati Enquirer alleges that the
Republicans bought their late victory in
that city. If this is correct the Democrats
thereabouts must be getting some OF their
money back Philadelphia Record Dem
ocratic).
The New York Times, referring to the
boycott against Mrs. Gray, the New York
baker, says " The Irish pastime of boy
eotting does not appear to be growing in
favor i'll this free country. We pointed out
some months ago that the boycott is
reversible
The Rev. DR.. Merrill said last evening
that the first requisite TO success is to know
what is right. 1t may be So and yet if DR..
Merrill should CO. armed with that requi-
site, and try to run = local political club,
we fear that Satan's smile would be audible
as far as the top Of Telegraph hill.-[San
Francisco Post.
The whole theory OF law as now prac-
| tised over the whole civilized world must
| be oyerthrown and reversed in this country
at least. Everywhere the law treats labor
as the tool and servant of capital-as some
thing which capital is TO buy or sell or use.
This also must end. Capital must be
treated III law as God and nature intended
it to be-the tool and servant of labor
| Mr. Farmer District Master Workman,
knights of Labor, in Galveston (Tex.)
! Daily News.
| The Rev. Mr. Ravelin, who has "stolen
| the livery OF heaven to serve the devil in, -
and who for stipend of $3.50 a month is
! going up and down the State, paving the
air and believing forth blood-curdling
| threatenings, is coming here TO reannoint
! the leaders and blow the breath ofrenewed
! life into the n0srils of the Petaluma Boy
cotters League. Business men will do well
to face the issue and meet it squarely. 1t
IS not so very long ago that San Francisco
! found 1t necessary to invoke the aid of the
! Committee of Two Hundred to tide il over
a threatened danger. Is it wise for us, by
| inaction, to invite a similar condition of
afairs?-[ Petaluma Argus.
In conversing with several parties in this
community in regard to the anti Chinese
| question, and urging that they stand in
with the movement, the objection raised
by them all is that they are not in favor of
the boycott. They can give no reasonable
explanation why they disapprove of boy
cotting, but simply say, like Pixley, that it
is un-Amerlcan. 1t is not un-American
by any means, nor is it unlawful. But
what we want TO get at is this Why don't
these parties who disbelieve in the boycott
| practice what they preach? The Anti
Chinese League here has not ordered boy
cot upon any body, and yet the men who
refuse to join the movement are daily bow
cotting the members of the league Lyon
County (Neyada) Times.
Good citizens (patriots) have right tc
defend themselves against the unarmed
and peaceable and lawful invasion of the
| Chinese, by unarmed, peaceable and lawful
| agreement not TO employ Chinese in any
capacity, nor buy Chinese-manufactured
| goods or other products OF Chinese labor
and they have right to agree privately OF
publicly not to patronize those who en-
ploy Chinese labor or who purchase OF
deal in Chinese products. Such a boycott
is within the law, is upheld by common
sense, is justified by business principles
Bnt the ultra-boycott, as defined by the
| Sub-Executive Committee of the Peoples
| Nom Partisan Anti-Chinese Association oil
| California, is not within the law, because
| it proposes TO prevent citizens who have
money to pay from obtaining the neces.
saries OF life; it is not upheld by common
sense, because it appeals unnecessarily tc
radicalism and insults conservatism it is
not justified by business principles, because
| 1t refuses to take Chinese money and the
! money of those who use Chinese labor
and forces them TO send money out of the
State-the one evil of all evils the people
of this State have harped upon most LOUDLY
for the past twenty years.-[San Ma tex
Times and Gazette.