Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-03-17

glects 10 90, or by direct act refuses to
do what it is bound to do-extend the
equal protection of its laws to all persons
| guaranteed by law or treaty the protection
right of the citizen 10 be heard before the
/ Courts of his own State, aud the alien.
| assaulted by the citizen, must pro-
coed against him in the ordinary
| Courts of the State That he
! possesses no superior right to have all its
/ issues adj Indicated in Federal Courts Were
this so, they hold, the citizen who violates
a State law affecting an alien would be de-
| prlved of the inviolable right to be heard
before the Courts of his own State. and
J could be arrested and carried away to San
francisco before Federal Court, where he
might be unable to give bail or avail of the
ordinary rights and privileges he wouId
| enjoy at home. So, too, if the alien offends
against the law he could, according to this
doctrine. compel the people to prosecute
him in the Federal Courts, and snap his
hngers at the State Courts, which, the de-
PENDANTS hold, is too absurd to be for a
moment entertained. Regarding the sixth
section of the Burlingame treaty, thew re-
spond that it does not and cannot deprive
the citizen of any right guaranteed him by
the laws, nor give to an alien any greater
right than the citizen enjoys. In short,
'4Nte Alde lAC liGGtN 10 the CHI
nanan is that the States shall protect him.
and that not until the State of California
refuses or neg,ects to do so can he appeal
to the Federal Government
THE OTHER SIDE.
The complaint drawn by Armstrong &
Hlnkson charges that the defendants have
violated Section 5519 of the Revised Stat
utes OF the United States They hold that
the statute, so far as the Chinese are con-
cerned, is constitutional. The Tennessee
case referred to was not a parallel case.
That was a case between citizens of the
State, and this is an issue between citizens
OF California and aliens, subjects of the
Empire of China. Counsel for the prose-
cution are confident that the case will Law.
ana that the indictment will be found
sufficient.
In conversation with reporter last even
Ing Add. c. Hinkson, of counsel for the
prosecution, said they relied not only upon
the statute referred to, but also upon Ar
tlc!e VI. of the Burlingame treaty, which
is as follows:
Article VI. Citizens of the United States visit
ing or residing in China shall enjoy the same
privileges, immunities, or exemption in respect
70 travel or residence as may there be enjoyed
by the citizens or subjects of the most favored
nations And, reclprocally, Chinese subjects
visiting or residing in the United States Shall
ENJOY the same privileges, immunities and ex-
emPtlons IN respect to travel or residence as
may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects
OF the most favored nation but nothing herein
contained shall be held 10 confer naturalization
upon citizens of The United States in China nor
upon the subjects of China in the United States
AN EMINENT JURIsT's OPINION.
Dir. Hinkson, in support of his opinion.
said Judge Deadv. in the case Of Baker
VS.. the city of Portland, Or, which was
brought TO enjoin the city from enforcing
an Act of the Legislature to prohibit the
the employment of Chinese laborers on the
improvement of streets and public works
IN the State, said, in speaking of the Bur
llngame treaty: Until this treaty is
abrogated or modified by the political de-
partment of the Government, it is the SUI
preme law of the land, and the Courts are
bound to enforce 1t fully and fairly. An
honorable man keeps his own word under
all circumstances, and an honorable ma
ton abides by its treaty obligations, even
to its own disadvantage The State cannot
legislate so as to interfere with the opera
uon OF this treaty, or limit or deny the
privileges or immunities guaranteed by
1t to the Chinese residents in this
country. If the State can restrain
and limit the Chinese in their
labor and pursuits within its limits. it NAV
do the same by the subjects of Great Brit
am, france or Germany. Now, can it he
said, with any show of reason or fairness.
that the treaty does not contemplate that
the Chinese shall have the right to labor
whlie IN the United States? 1t implicitly
recognizes their right to make this country
their home, and expressly permits them to
become permanent residents here; and
this necessarily implies the right to live
and to labor for a living. 1t is difficult to
conceive a grosser case of keeping the word
OF promise to the ear and breaking it to the
hope, than to invite Chinese to become
permanent residents of this country, upon
direct pledge that they shall enjoy all the
privileges here of the most favored nations,
and then to deliberately prevent them from
earning a living, and thus make professed
right of residence a mere mockerv and de-
celt. The treaty furnishes the law, and
with that treaty no State or municipal cor
pOratiOn thereof can Interfere y