Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-01-18
CITIZENS MEETING
TO BE HELD TONIGHT TO con.
SLIDER THE CHINESE PROBLEM.
a Very Able Opinion of Hon. A. p.
Catlin Relative to the China
town-Removal Ordinance.

cuHsiueI AatlerS relative TO the CnlneSe
problem generally, and the ordinance in
troduced before the Board of Trustees last
Monday by the Ordinance Committee, rela-
tive TO the removal of the Chinese from
within the city limits, in particular Hon
Grove l.. Johnson, who was Chairman of
the committee that drafted the ordinance
will give his views relative to its practical
bility and constitutionality. The Trustees
will hold special meeting tomorrow
morning to consider the subject, and it is
desirable that they should have all the light
upon it that can be furnished them. To
this end they submitted the ordinance to
Hon. A. 2. Catlin, and requested his opin-
ion upon 1t, which he has given. 1t is an
able review of the matter, and we give it
in full
To The Honorable Board Of Trustees Of the city
o. Sacramento: In response to your request for
my opinion as to the Constitutional validity and
binding force of the anti-Chinese ordinance pro-
posed on the llth instant, fer your considera-
ton by committee of an anti-Chinese assoeia-
ton, have to say:
That said ordinance is a selfmanifest and
palpa6ie violation OF the Federal Constitution.
in that il is aimed to exclude from the city of
sacramento all persons of a certain.nationalty
that Is to say, all Chinese, without regard TO
age, sex, occupation, or other condition. To
some minds this does not perhaps sppear so
apparent But to the same minds if an ordi-
nance were framed, with whereas even more
verbose and extended than this in recitation of
supposed evils, followed by q section making IL
IL misdemeanor punishable by fine and impris-
onment for any Italian, Mexican or Portu-
guese to reside in or remain within the limits
of the city after specified time, it
would at once become perfectly clear that
the Federal Constitution State Constitution
and laws to the contrary Notwithstanding does
not tolerate, but forbids such class legislation
Il would need no reference TO decisions OF
Courts. The common intelligence and sense of
the American mind, trained and habtuated not
TO know any distinction between the rights of
property and personal liberty of the native born,
and the resident alien. would respond at once
| by an appeal to the Constitution of the United
| States, TO which, and to the treaties made by
| the United States with foreign powers all the
| people of State, of whatever race, or of what
ever BIRTH as well the native as the alien born,
must look. and, may add, may look with per-
feet confidence for protection. against state or
municipal invasion of their rights. / would sd
wise your Honorable Board to call upon those
VINO advocate the proposed ordinance, to fur
| nlsh authority for the proposition, that under
the constitution OF the United States, or by yir
| tue of any treaty between the General Govern
ment and China, that Chinese may lawfully
| be excluded from Sacramento. You may ex-
| clude ''all Migrants paupers, mendicants, Grim
| inals and ipYalids afflicted with contagious and
| infectious diseases" but your ordinance for
that purpose must aim at all of such persons
| not those of the Chinese race exclusively. A
| law making vagrancy misdemeanor is valid :
but a law making vagrancy by Chinese g mis-
demeanor would be invalid. So, i'll my opinion
the proposed ordinance, by reason of its appli-
cation to Chinese exclusively, would fall dead
! beneath the weight of the fourteenth amend
! ment of the Federal Constitution. This part of
| the Constitution contains the following golden
| words:
| "No State shall make or enforce any law which
| shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
| citizens OF the United States; nor shall any
state deprive any person of life, liberty or
| property without due process of law; nor deny
| to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws
| The following is from the treaty with China /:
| ARTICLE 5. The United States and the Emperor
| of China, cordially recognize the inherent and
| inalienable right of man to change mis- home and
| allegiance, and, also, the mutual advantages of
| the free migration and emigration of their citi-
zens and subjects respectively from the one
country the other, for purposes of curiosity of
| trade, or as permanent residents.
/" Article 6, Citizens oftne United States visit
| ing or residing in China, shall enjoy the same
| privileges, immunities or exemptions, in respect
| to travel Or residence as may there be enioyed
! by the citizens or subjects of the most favored
/ nation, and reciprocally, Chinese visiting or
| residing in the United States shall enjoy the
same privileges, immun;tes and exemptions in
respect to tSdre or residence may there be en-
| Joyed by the citizens or subjects OF the most
favored nation
| BY the above it will be seen that Chinese are
guaranteed the same rights that other aliens are
The promoters of the proposed ordinance must
imagine that1hc State of California may at will
abrog6se this treaty.
This question was very Thoroughly considered
by the United States Circuit CourtIn re- PARROT,
Saw, 800, where it was held that any pro-
vision of the Constitution or laws of California
in conflict with the treaty with China is void'
and where the whole of Article XIX. of the State
Constitution was SWEET out of the category of
law.
In that case one of the Judges said 1.-THE
declaration that the Chinese must go, peacea-
bly, or forcibly,' is an insolent contempt
OF national obligations, and an auda-
cious defiance of national authority. Be-
fore it can be carried into effect
first not only be deiied, but resisted and over
come. The attempt to effect this object by vio-
lence will be crushed by the power of the Gov
eminent The attempt to attain the same object
indirectly by legislation will be met with equal
firmness by the Courts; no matter whether it as
sumes the guise of an exercise of the police
or OF any other power reserved by the State; and
no matter whether il takes the form of a consti
tutional provision, Legislative enactment, or a
municipal ordinance"
Article VI. of the Constitution Of the United
States says: This Constitution and the laws of
the United States which shall be made in pursr
ance thereof and all treaties made or which
shall be made, under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law ofthe land, and
the Judges in every State shall be bound there
by, anything in the Constitution or laws of any
lative and executive officers of States and NUM-
cipalities are as much bound as judicial officers
by the Federal Constitution, and by their oaths
are boundto support 1t.
Section 1877 of the United States Revised
Statutes, passed to give effect to the fourteenth
amendment. provides that ''G0 persons mot all
citizens) within the jurisdiction of the United
States shall have the same right in every State
and Territory to make and enforce contracts
to sue, be parties, give evidence, and 10 the full
and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings
for the security of pprSOn and nc ts
enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject
TO like punishment, pains, penalties taxes,
licenses aud exaetions of every kind, and 10 no
Other"
1t is not possible for anyone TO be so blind.
however much he may affect a mental obli-
guilty, as not to see that, under the paramount
law of the land, municipal legislation requir-
ing Cinnamon to abandon their leasehold es-
tates in this city. and remove their goods and
chattels outside the city limits, would be mop
erative, null and void.
In the case of Baker vs. City of Portland
% Sawy.. 500. the United States Circuit Judge
said The right to reside in foreign country
implies the right to labor there for living"
In the same case, after rehearsing the
provisions of the Chinese treaty, the Court
said 8 Therefore if the State can restrain and
limit the Chinese in their labor and pursuits
within its limits it may do the same by the sub
Iects of Great Britain, France or Germany"
These principles have recently been recog
niZed by the Supreme Court of California in
what is known as the laundry case in San Fran
cisco, where it was held that
"A municipal regulation which applies alike
to all persons engaged in given pursuit with
out distinction TO nationality residence age
sex or condition, is not, when otherwise regular
and valid, subject to the criticism of being in
violation of treaty obligations existing between
the United States and China"
The Constitution of the United States will
surely leap over any wall of exclusion which
municipal folly may undertake to erect against
the people protected by this treaty.
An eminent commentator upon the Constitrl-
ton says; " 1t must always be borne in mind that
the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United
states are as much part of the law of every
state as its own local laws aud Constitution"
From the above considerations and authori-
ties, and many others that might be adduced, it
must be apparent that the proposed ordinance
cannot be sustained as police regulation. In
the Parrott case, the Act of the Legislature of
1880, making it an offense for corporation to
employ Chinese, was defended upon that ground
1t being claimed that the object of the law was
to prevent yagraney, pauperism, mendicity,
and crime But the Court said There are
other objections to an unlimited immigration of
that people, founded on distinctions of race
and differences in the character of their ciyili-
cation, religion and other habits to my mind of
far more weighty character But these I'M
fortunately for those seeking to eyade treaty
stipulations and constitutional guarantees can
by no plausible mlsnomer, eranged under the
police powers of the State" And in referring