BY TREATY STIPULATIONS the Chinese in this country are guaranteed the same rights and privileges as are accorded the most favored nations. One Thomas Baldwin was arrested by a United States Marshal for driving out with force and violence a number of Chinese residents from the town of Nicolaus, California. The circuit court refused to discharge him upon a writ of habeas corpus. An appeal was taken to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court looked the matter through and found that while the United States Government has the _power_ to provide for the punishment of those who deprive the Chinese of their treaty rights, there is no statute law by which it can exercise its power! The decision of the circuit court was therefore reversed. Justices Field and Harlan dissented. In a separate opinion, Justice Field held that if the Chinese could not be protected in their treaty rights, neither could the subjects or citizens of any other nation. This is a beautiful attitude for the great United States to be placed in before the eyes of the world. Making treaties when it has not power to compel its own citizens to observe them! What a farce. Is it to be supposed that if this were understood nations would go to the trouble of making treaties with us? Were the questions at issue about the Chinese raised in regard to subjects of Great Britain or Germany or any of the first or even second-class powers of Europe, is it to be supposed that any such a decision would have been formulated and promulgated by our Supreme Court? We do not question the ability nor the integrity of our justices. The probability is that in the _strict_ construction of the law they are right. But even judges, when put to it, can sometimes find such latitude in the field of interpretation as to warrant them in setting aside mere technicalities rather than to allow justice to be defeated. That such eminent jurists as Field and Harlan found interpretations that justified them in dissenting; that the circuit court in California found reasons for refusing to release Baldwin from custody, would certainly indicate that the decision is fairly challengeable. It is a national humiliation. It ought to be so felt by the people. It would be so felt if regard for right and justice were supreme in the national heart and conscience. It is to be hoped that this matter will be brought by the proper authority, as soon as practicable, to the attention of Congress, and that the United States Government will speedily be clothed with statutory power to enforce its own treaties. If this decision shall have the effect of getting us out of the painful predicament that it reveals our Government to be in, we may reluctantly accept it as a means of grace. Meanwhile even China is on record as being far more Christian in her treatment of our people than Christian America is in its treatment of hers. * * * * *