A SHORT time ago a lawyer of Portland, Oregon, was found dead in an opium den. This naturally made quite a stir, and people very properly say that such places should not be tolerated. But the case has its parallel, and the Los Angeles Mirror treats of it in the following rational manner:— The finding of the dead man in the Chinese den at Portland, Oregon, very properly excites comment, and we hope will lead to the adoption of stringent measures to suppress such gateways to perdition. It appears the deceased was a prominent lawyer, and a husband and father. He entered the den in a state of partial intoxication, probably intending to allay his nervousness by the narcotic, but being too much inebriated to care properly for himself, partook too freely of the poisonous drug, and perished in his inebriation. The circumstance has a parallel in a case which occurred in this city a few years since. A husband and father who was addicted to occasional carousals when in possession of means derived from laboring at his profession, stood at a bar on Spring Street and drank until he was past care for himself. The keeper of the den, not willing to expose himself by thrusting his victim into the street, let the man lie on the floor where he fell, and locked the door upon him. On opening the door in the morning, the poor man was found lying just where he was left the night previous, but stone dead! He had been allowed to lie there by the brute who had furnished him with the poison that had terminated his career, and die within half a mile of his loving wife and tender children! No remonstrance was ever uttered against the manner of the man's taking off. A verdict of the jury that he died of apoplexy was the finale of the investigation into the case, and when the time came round the den-keeper was duly licensed to continue his murderous business for another term! Our contemporary of the Herald says the Chinaman who kept the opium den in Portland should be indicted for manslaughter on no other evidence than the finding of the man dead on his premises. What will he say of the Los Angeles case? Is the sin of the ignorant Chinese heathen greater than that of the white Christian?