Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-01-18

led to slaughter, to prepare and to sell his own
meats; but he is required TO slaughter at a
speclhed place, and pay areasonable compensa-
tlon IoT the use OF the accommodations fur
nished him at that place"
These cases illustrate the wide gulf of differ
ence that exists between those acts of hostility
against private rights which are prohibited by
the Constitution, and those which may he law
fully employed to regulate the enjoyment of
those rights. If the pretense be made lit can be
nothing above a pretense) that the expulsion
anu exclusion OF chinese from Sacramento is
merely an exercise of those powers of police
regulation which it is conceded belong TO the
states, the answer, il it does not already sniff
cientiy appear, may be found in the quick frus-
tratlon OF the several attempts heretofore made
in this State to evade treaty obligations and
constitutional guarantees. The law imposing a
special license tax upon Chinese miners, the
Cue ordinance, the Act requiring bonds from
ship-owners as a condition for being allowed to
land certain enumerated classes of passengers
wide 49, Z. s. Rep, 30, all sought cover under
t ,ha; PhetenSe, put were promptly stripped of
eral Courts TO deep and early graves
Relief from the Chinese evil can be had only
through the agency OF the General Government
The remedies, SO far as legislation is concerned
are exclusively within the domain of Federal
power. Any attempted usurpation of its juris-
dlctlon by state, county or municipal interfer-
ference, especially that kind of interference
which proposes to infict personal injury and
wrong upon Chinese residents Will retard not
advance, the efforts that are being made In Con-
SIesS W ODlall Sucn reue1. a. L. CATIIN.
City Attorney Anderson, to whom the
Trustees also referred the ordinance, has
suggested to the Board that the following
questions be propounded to the committee
by whom the ordinance was drawn. twill
be seen that they are very effectually an
swered IN Mr.. Catlin's statement of facts !:
First-Would this ordinance conflict with the
Federal Constitution, and particularly the four
teenth amendment thereof?
Second-Would it be in contravention TO the
treaty between the United States and China and
has not the treaty making power been sllrren-
dered by the states to the National Govern
ment?
Third-Are not the provisions OF Article NIX.
OF the Constitution of California in direct con-
tiict with the Federal Constitution and the Chi
nese treaty, and if so are they not void. and any
enactment under them by the Legislature or
municipal bodies invalid?
Fourth-Does not the fourteenth amendment
prohibit discriminating legislation by a State
against any class of persons, or against persons
OF particular race or nation, in whatever form
1t may be expressed, if it deprives such class of
persons, or persons of such particular race of
the equal protection of the laws?
Flfth-Could the proposed ordinance if adopt
ed, be enforced in either the State or Federal
Courts?
SiXth--Have not the Federal Courts passed
upon the questions involved in this ordinance i?
Seventies it not the fact that the remedy in
voked is not with the State but with the General
Government?