Year: 1859




wit: the Ex-Assemblyman of the Herald, or the
San Francisco Port Warden in proPectu. To
begin. then we find ourself in fix similar to
that of certain father. His baby was so little
that he couldn't find a spot large enough to
smack So with our subject. 1t is so small
that, really, we can scarce 6nd space sufficient
to bestow spanking on.


Ignorance is somewhat excusable when un-
accompanied by selfconceit. When person
however, through ignorance or lack Of compre-
hension, fails to understand our position on any
question, and failing to comprehend, presumes
to speak Of such position as inconsistent with
our previously expressed views, we feel it in
cumbent upon us to administer an amiable but
at The same time feeling rebuke.


Last week our downtown neighbor, without
any apparent cause, other than political illwill,
attempted in an impotent manner, to reflect upon
our consistency upon the Chinese question. The
article contained several personal illusions,
wholly foreign to the subject, which were lack
ing in wit dignity and editorial courtesy. We
will not be provoked to a reply in kind, but go
at once to the charge ofinconsistency. of We quote
from the Herald of the Sd inst:


'in 1853 the writer Mr. Street introduced a
bill into the Legislature, the object of which was
to prohibit Chinese from working the gold mines
of this State. Among others who threw cold
water on the cause was the editor of the Shasta
Courier. Hear what this oracle said then:


Mr.. Street has given notice of the introduc-
ton of Il bill to keep the Chinese out of the
mines in certain Counties. We doubt ,chether the
Legislature has power 10 prevent a Chulanian from
going any ,chere in the State he may please - Cou-
Tier, Feb. 9th, 1858.


That was before the China war"


The Herald editor states that the object of his
bill "was to prohibit Chinese from working the
gold mines of this State" On page IT'S of the
Assembly Journal, 9th session, it is stated that
Mr. Street gave notice of an intention to intro
duce bill to prevent the Chinese from work
ing the gold mines within certain counties in this
State" Passing over this at least apparent
discrepancy, we ask the editor why he did not
actually introduce his bill and fight for its pass
age? 1t may be that he did do so, but if he did
we have forgotten it, and we can find no further
reference to it in the Journals. 1t is possible
that our expression of opinion, which he itali-
cises, so discouraged him, that he afterwards at
no time found himself possessed of sufficient
courage to attempt to breathe life into his own
bantling Poor, unhappy father, had we known
that those four lines were to have such an effect,
they should have been accompanied by some
sort of word emollient Poh the idea of max
ing US responsible for the ex-Assemblyman's
inefficiency is absurd. If be will find among the
miners of Shasta county any intelligent man
who believes thatwe have not been consistent
on this question, from its birth to the present
day, we will aid him in reaching that goal
wich one of his friends is reported to have said
he was bound to attain-the Vice Presidency


But to show Mr.. Street that we are not amen
able to the charge of Inconsistency in the point
alleged, We declare that we do not now believe
that " the Legislature has power to prevent
Chinaman from going anywhere in the State he
may please"


In our paper of the 18th of November last
(since the Chinese war; the same that contained
the letter of "A Keerless but Observing Cuss,"
"hiSu AuoNo 81 Ill iLupTssSiOu upon the eu-
itor's memory-we said that the Chinese now
here may engage in any lawful pursuit" That
would necessarily imply the right to go into any
portion of the State


Our Supreme Court has decided that our Leg
islature cannot prevent the emigration of Chi
nese TO this State. The Herald and Courier NAV
think otherwise, but the Supreme Court has the
advantage of US, for its opinion is law, while our
opinion is not. If the Legislature, then, cannot
prevent their emigration to this State, how can
II conhne them to certain localities in the State?
They come here under Federal law-under trea-
ty, which is higher law" than that passed by
our Legislature. Ifthe Federal Government ba,
guaranteed to them the right to come, and the
Supreme Court says it has, then it has given
them the right to go into any county of anv
State in the Union. This conclusion is so ire
sistible that no sensible man will fail to per-
ceiye it,


The editor OF the Herald ought to know, what
the old-resident miners of this county all know
that we have always striven for that sort of leg
lslation which would prevent other Chinese from
coming here, and encourage those now here to
leave AS soon as possible To this end we ia
vored foreign miners tax sufficiently high TO
exclude them from the mines, knowing well that
the mines alone attracted them to and retained
them IN our State. We fought against and vo-
ted against reduction of that tax to 81 Der
month.


But now that we are upon this question, with
Mr.. Street as our prosecutor, let US reverse po-
siuons. We have seen that he gave notice to
introduce an anti-Chinese bill session before
last, but we can not find that be ever did intro
duce IT, although he now says that he did
Did he do it2 If not why not? If he intro
duced it, did be endeavor to have it passed p
II not, why not2


On the 4th of February last, the Chinese
question being considerably agitated in this
county, Mr. Street introduced bill "to prevent
Chinese or Mongolians from working the gold
mines of this State" It was read first and
second time, and referred to the Committee on
Mines and Mining Interests Aud that. so far
ss'we can hnd, was the last of it. Now the
question rasurally arises if he was in earnest in
that matter, why did be not do something more
than introduce his bill If the COMMITTEES me-
elected to report why did he not offer resolu-