Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-06-06

For an example of poor law administered to
its own destruction commend us to the statute
prohibiting the impor tation of foreigners under
contract to perform services here. 1t is q vi
cious and changing measure, easier to violate
In ways not contemplated by its trainers than
to enforce in the field which it was expressly
designed to cover. Its original purpose was to
prevent the introduction into this country of a
vast horde of ignorant besotted foreigners to
take the places Of our native or naturalized
workmen in mines and factories. In this re-
speet it seems to ha e failed, as the foreigners
continue to pour into the country and to be
employed in many places to the exclusion of
men already on the soil; whereas the clergy
man brought over to minister to the spiritual
needs of Holy Trinity parish in New York, the
Swiss manufacturing expert who was to in
struct American working people in a new
handicraft, and other strangers who would
be most valuable acquisitions, are ruled
out on technical considerations. The latest
victims of this absurd legislation are the
eminent scholars whom it was proposed to
bring over from Europe as instructors in the
Catholic university near this city. Why America
should be robbed of the services of the cream
of Europe's civilization by law which was in
run by the scum does not appear. The statute
evidently needs some energetic overhauling.
As it stands it raises no barriers to the incur
sion Of low class of immigrants who do not
stick at perjury as a means of evasion, but shuts
out persons of character whose finer sensibili-
ties revolt at the idea of sneaking into the
country under the cover of a falsehood when
the truth would shut the door in their faces.
The social censors on the British press have
been given food for lively controversy by the
reported action of Mrs. Joseph Chamberlain in
quitting the table of distinguished hostess
because the talk of her fellow-diners was too
broad for her taste. The merits of the case will
never be fully understood, because there was
no reporter present to give to the world a
faithful transcript of the conversation. 1t may
be taken for granted however, that Mrs.
Chamberlain. whose refined associations in
America are sufficient warrant against her
doing anything Of the sort for sensational pur-
poses, was really shocked by what she heard
and did not wish to subject herself to further
shame FOR her surroundings. Our English
cousins often laugh at US for the restrictions
We place upon our polite converse, and to some
extent they are justified. The mock modesty
which refuses to recognize distinction of sex
In the lower animals, chasing all members of
the canine family as male and of the bovine as
female, which confuses all the extremities of
the human frame in the sweeping category OF
limbs, and which treats all the natural con-
ditions and incidents of motherhood as topics
only hit for muffled tong les. deserves nothing
but contempt. There is, however, a marked
distinction between such vulgar prudery and
that finer sensitiyeness which draws the line at
gloating over foulness in any form. The re-
hearsal OF family scandals N all their minutest
details, for instance, not for the purpose of
discovering how fellow-being in misfortune
can be helped back to fair place in the world,
or how sorrowing friends can be comforted.
but purely for the enjoyment of a moral wal
low, Ii infinitely worse. The leper who has
sufficient regard for the sensibilities Of other
men to draw a robe over his sores is to be COM
mended above him who exposes his loathsome-
ness needlessly. What the old cynic said
about society's growing no better, but only
more decent, has some point But who will
say that society Is not actually better for its
greater decency? And is the woman to be
blamed who is brave enough to face criticism by
usterinS her protest against letting both virtues
go, when the lesser one, at least, can still be
retained with profit?