Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-01-19

oiS iudt, anu Is part the
ordinance and one of the reasons for its
passage The remainder of the preamble
J IS just as true and commends itself with
equal force
He read Article XIX of the State Con-
| stitutioD, which, he said, if anything, was
mandatory. He said he read the article
| because many people during this g uncon-
stltuuonaI storm were not aware that it
| was IN the Constitution. He also read the
statute of the State, saying that it IS man
! datory.
| I have thus shown, first, the necessity of
! the ordinance, and the reasons and truth
tulAess of the preamble; second, the au-
/ thoFity and mandate of the Constitution of
/ California third, the authority and man.
date of the Legislature ot California |
might rest the case here, for it istbe duty
OF all people, all officials, all Trustees, all
editors, all City Attorneys. TO obey the Con-
stitution of California until that Constitu-
! tion has been interpreted by, and set aside
! by. Court OF competent jurisdiction and
| last resort.
| Just think for amoment Here is ourS State
/ Constitution, solemniy adopted by n con-
ventlon aud sOlemnlv ratified by the whole
| people, imposing certain duties upon pub
lie officials, and yet is claimed that the
Constitution is itself unconstitutional.
| THIS IS RANK NONSENSE.
The editor may be excused, the CITY At
torney not. The official should obey, not
attempt TO rule the people
Section l says: Boards of Trustees and
| Boards of Supervisors are hereby granted
the power, and it is hereby made their
duty, to pass all ordjna' ces and laws neces-
sary to remove Chinese etc.
| There is the Act the of Legislature. and the
provision OF the Constitution The pre-
amble shows the necessity of It's passage
The authority and mandate of the Legisla-
ture was approved by the Governor. direct
| ing the Trustees of this city as 10 their
duty in this regard.
After | commenced this investigation
! thought | would see who wrote this section
OF the Constitution, which, it is now
claimed, is unconstitutional. In that con-
vention was what was called the sand
lot brigade. You would have supposed il
! emanated from a sandlot member of the
Workingmen's party, and YOU would saw
they should be excused, for they knew no
better. The author of that section was
Joseph w. Winans, the peer OF any attor-
ney III this city; a lawyer of distinguished
ability cool, calm, conservative; one of
the few lawyers of whom it is said
never gets mad in Court. If YOU will
turn to page 725 of the second volume
| of Constitutional Debates you will find a
BlSibl-f VI iiiGl SGCl4Oil. ne speaker read
Mr.. Winans' speech upon that occasion.
" If those remarks continued the sneaker
that We're uttered by John W Winans
We're uttered to-day they would be called
incendiary. General John F. Miller was
Chairman of the committee who had charge
of arranging that section and he said there
was no objection to it, and it was adopted
by avote OF ia to II. Among those voting
aye were such men as Mem: Shafter, Estee,
Freeman, Hagar, Dunlap Hale Hilbein.
McCallum, Rolfe, Van Dyke. Hoge. ali
eminent lawyers, men who would compare
| favorably as constitutional LAWYERS with the
average Sacramento editor or the average
Sacramento City Attorney. 1t is true that
some voted to reconsider, so as to strike out
the words as to prohibit introduction.
etc, but none objected to the part under
which we act-p. 1867. In such COM
pany | am willing to stand; with the con-
stitutional construction adopted by such
lawyers | am willing to abide and assume
as my own. Democrats and Republicans
are represented, youth and old age. poverty
and wealth; with them to indorse our
views and our ordinance, we may laugh TO
scorn the editorials of any paper, and re-
gard with disdain the
STALE coNUNDRUMs OF CITY ATTORNEYS
And the opinions of attorneys written per
haps for the case.
But there is another view of this cues
ton. Our Supreme Court has practically
decided it in our favor. The exclusion of
Chinese ct al. from testifying in Court was
carried to our Supreme Court in 1870. Now.
if anything violated the Burlingame treaty
and the first section of the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution of the
United States it was this. But in October.
1870, our Supreme Court decided that it did
NJ cxx-ac nf,,,
fore it went up again to the Court. And in
1872 Republican Supreme Court indorsed
the decision of the Democratic Supreme
Court. Part of this decision is interesting
as warning to lawyers. The last sentence
says Lower Courts are not allowed to set
aside the decisions of this Court"
Ii the ordinance is unconstitutional, it
must be, first because of the Burlingame
treaty, or, second, because of Section 1 of
the fourteenth amendment to the Constitu-
ton of the United States. As to the Bur-
lingame treaty, we will meet them at the
outset by denying its constitutionality. A
treaty must be made under the authority of
the United States and we deny the author
ity OF Congress to adopt treaty forcing
people upon US. We have as much right
to shout unconstitutional as thev. Be
sides, 1t does not infringe upon the treaty.
If this ordinance conflicts with the four
teenth amendment what portion of il e?
These Cinnamon were not born in the
United States, nor naturalized in the
| United States therefore, it does not
apply to them. They are not citi-
zens, and we do not deprive
| them of life liberty or the pursuit of hap
| piness. Due process means that every man
has right to be heard in his own defense.
and these Cinnamon under this ordinance
can be heard. Wherein are they denied
equal protection of the law? The equality
OF the protection of the law is where a per
son of class is treated the same as all
other oftEe class. Each Chinaman has the
same equality before the law, the rich and
the poor Chinaman, all treated alike and
all have equal protection before the law.
| The Indians of California and the United
States are persons. and yet we have laws
personally made for them, and laws that
the people of Sacramento county think an
infringement on the sacred right of an
] American citiZen-to drink when. where
and as often as he pieases. The people of
| California swept from the statute books all
such laws. Yet there is statute and ordi
nance that denies the right to sell an In
dian liquor. Is 1t not class legislation? Is
| 1t not against the Indians? We make
| treaties with them, they are persons they
can testify. and yet the law saws an Indian
cannot drink nor buy liquor, and the Su-
| preme Court OF the United States has de-
cided it constitutional. They said it was,
first, for the good of the country; second,
that al! Indians were treated alike. Again.
The Thugs of Asia, with deadly bow-s string,
as a nation, class, a religious sect, are dan
gerous. Can we not exclude them? The
| Chinese are moral as well as physical
Thugs. They ruin the soul. destroy the
intellect, degrade the humanity as well as
take the life.
! The opponents of this ordinance rein
forced themselves by Hon. A. 2. Catlin's
| opinion. have great respect for Mr.. Cat
lin; but when and where did he get the
power to decide all constitutional oues-
tions? He is a lawyer-a good one-re-
ceiving fee and writing an opinion: that's s
all. But Catlin, unlike editor and CITY
Attorney, cites cases, and / will an
swer him. l cannot read law or
| argue as to decisions before mixed audi
ence to any good advantage, but will do
| enough to show the faith that is in me.
| His main cases are Baker VS. Portland Is
Sawyer, Circuit Court Reports, $685. decided
by Deadly, j., and Field, j.; in re-. PARROT (6
Sawyer, G. G. r., 349), decided by Hoffman,
j., and Sawyer J. l might answer that