Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/500

 493 fedebaij bbpoetee. �trustee, agent, and representative of the sharelioldera. who are the real owners. And it seems to me that their right to use and enjoy their property is as secure under constitutional guarantees as are the rights of private persons to the prop- erty they may own. That the law in question, substantially and not merely theoretically, violates the constitutional rights of the owners of corporate property, can readily be shown. �Already several corporations representing investments of great magnitude, submitting to its commands, have ceased their operations. It is probable that, if the law be declared valid, many more will be forced to follow their example. li applies to ail corporations formed under the laws of this state. If its provisions be enforced, a bank or a railroad company will lose the right to employ a Chinese interpreter to enable it to communicate with Chinese with whom it does business. A hospital association would be unable to employ a Chinese servant to make known or minister to the wants of a Chinese patient ; and even a society for the conversion of the heathen would not be allowed to employ a Chinese convert to inter- pret the gospel to Chinese neophytes. �The language of the supreme court in Shields y. Ohio, 95 U. S. 324, bas already been quoted: "The alterations must be reasonable ; they must be made in good f aith, and be con- sistent with the scope and object of the act of incorporation. under the, guise of amendment or alteration." �Can it be pretended that this law, of the effect of which I bave given these examples, is reasonable as between the state and the corporations, without regard to the treaty rights of Chinese residents. Can it be said to be in good faith — that is, in the fair and just exercise of the reserved power to reg- ulate corporations for the protection of the stockholders, their creditors, and the general public ? Is it not rather an attempt, "under the guise of amendment or alteration," to attain quite a different, and, as I shall presently show, an unconstitutional object, viz. : To drive the Chinese from the state, by pre- venting them from laboring for their livelihood ? I apprehend that, to these questions, but one candid answer can be given. ��� �
 * * • Sheer oppression and wrong canuot be inaicted