Transcriber Note: Text emphasis denoted as _Italics_.




                                  THE

                        Chinese Exclusion Act.


                        REPORT AND RESOLUTIONS

                            ADOPTED BY THE

                          CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

                                OF THE

                          STATE OF NEW YORK.


                           December 5, 1889.


                               New York:

                                 1889.




                   Press of De Leeuw & Oppenheimer,

                          231 William Street,

                               New York.




                      The Chinese Exclusion Act.

_REPORT AND RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK, DECEMBER 6, 1889._


The committee on Foreign Commerce and the Revenue Laws, to which was
referred a communication from Mr. C. P. Huntington relating to the
Chinese Exclusion Act, submits the following report:

  The attention of the Chamber has been called to this subject by a
  letter addressed to Mr. A. A. Low, a member of the Chamber, by Mr.
  C. P. Huntington, also a member, and by Mr. Low referred to the
  Chamber. As this letter is the basis of our inquiry and embodies
  the views of many of the people of the United States, it is proper
  that it should be given in full. It is as follows:

                                         New York, November 24th, 1888.

  A. A. Low, Esq.,
         Burling Slip, New York City.

  _Dear Sir:_ I do not carry in my mind whether you have altogether
  retired from the China trade; but I know you still have a keen
  interest in the national prosperity and in the dignity and honor
  of this Government. I suppose you felt as most other people did,
  last summer, when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, that
  it was an unworthy proceeding which nothing but the necessities
  of a partisan struggle could have brought about It may have been
  foreseen, and perhaps was pointed out at the time, that the
  Government of China had it in its power to inflict far more serious
  harm upon our country than we could upon China, even supposing that
  the coming of the Chinese was the injury to our laboring people
  which was charged. It seems that without uttering a word or lifting
  a finger the Chinese are enabled to retaliate effectively against
  our commerce; so that we have not only offered them a wanton
  affront, but also injured ourselves la a twofold way, by excluding
  a tractable and cheap labor which we very much need to build up
  our desolate places; and by the loss of a valuable trade which we
  might have kept to the exclusion of our rivals. A gentleman direct
  from Chinese and Japanese ports tells me that since the news of the
  passage of the Exclusion Act reached China American agents there
  have been unable to sell any of the coarser cotton textile fabrics,
  of which they had been taking large quantities. Their wants are
  supplied from other sources; England, I suppose. They offer no
  explanation for this change of policy, but simply say they are not
  baying. Just as soon as they can supply themselves with petroleum
  from Asiatic oil wells we may expect that trade to follow. Clocks
  and machinery can be supplied by the English and Germans who would
  be glad to relieve us of the trade. The tea, mattings, raw silks
  and other commodities which we need and can buy nowhere else,
  Americans will have to pay for in coin, or exchange on London, when
  we might have paid for them with our own products.

  Is not this, a heavy price to pay for the luxury of the hoodlum
  vote of California. It is to be hoped that the expiring Congress
  will find time to undo this pernicious piece of spiteful
  legislation; or, if not, that the incoming administration will so
  interpret the law and instruct its ministers so as to restore the
  lost amity. Just how this is to be brought about, you know as much
  as I do.

  It occurs to me that the New York Chamber of Commerce might
  properly speak on this subject, and I know of no one so well
  fitted as yourself to move in this matter. If you will undertake
  it, please do so; and if I can be of any assistance to you in the
  matter, I shall cheerfully render it. It seems to me this is a
  clear case where patriotic duty calls for prompt action.

                                               Very respectfully yours,
                                                       C. P. HUNTINGTON

That the sentiments of this letter are not peculiar to its author,
but are shared by many others in all parts of the United States, is
manifest from the following expressions taken from prominent public
journals.

The _Commercial_, of Louisville, says:

  "The Chinese question is receiving a larger share of public
  attention as it becomes apparent that the ill effects of the
  Exclusion Act are manifold and certain, while it is exceedingly
  doubtful whether 'exclusion' can really be accomplished."

The _Bulletin_, of Providence, R. I., says:

  "For the inspiration of the whole disgraceful business was not the
  public welfare nor the public dignity, but the desire to advance
  public party interests by satisfying a clamoring crowd of Pacific
  coast voters. With few exceptions the leaders of either party
  were only too eager to grant whatever the sand lot crowd of San
  Francisco desired. * * * So generally was this understood that the
  harsh construction put upon the act in the late administration
  was accepted without question everywhere as fairly embodying the
  purpose of Congress; and no one, even among those who deplored the
  law and felt humiliated in their citizenship by it, ever thought to
  doubt the correctness of the decision, but looked upon it as the
  natural conclusion to a piece of shameful demagogism.

  "Some day, doubtless, we shall learn that by insulting a sensitive
  people who are essential to the development of our commerce on the
  Pacific, and who might have been made valuable customers, we have
  spited nobody so much as ourselves."

  "The San Francisco _Report_," says the Atlanta _Journal_, "has
  amended the California slogan, 'The Chinese must go.' It says
  that the agriculturists who cannot get along without them must
  also go; that 'if they have become so far demoralized as to
  prefer to associate with yellow slaves rather than with their
  fellow-countrymen, California can hardly be a desirable place of
  residence for them.' Isn't it about time to consider whether we are
  not pushing to hurtful extremes the policy of excluding workingmen
  from this country."

  "The St Paul _Pioneer Press_ characterizes the regulation
  forbidding Chinese laborers from landing at American ports, for
  any purpose whatever, as being 'about as stringent as the old
  anti-Huguenot laws of France.' And that paper goes on to say, 'It
  is to the material interest of this country to cultivate friendly
  relations with China. We want her trade, now largely going to Great
  Britain, but we cannot expect to get it by hurling exclusion acts
  at her. As a matter of fact the anti-Chinese laws now existing
  have not kept many Chinese out of the country. They come in with
  the greatest ease through British Columbia and Mexico. There are
  just as many Chinese in the country as there were in 1880. This is
  the result of about forty years' Immigration. And, as these people
  cling more fondly to their native heath than any other in the
  world, the dangers of their overrunning this continent, even if all
  its ports were thrown open to them, is altogether imaginary."

  The Omaha _Bee_ declares that "the matter possesses the interest of
  an International question, the decision of which will hardly fall
  to have a more or less important bearing upon our future relations
  with China;" and "the Chinese government may reasonably be expected
  to regard the discrimination against Its people as evidence of a
  seated hostility to them which self-respect would compel it to
  resent. Chinese merchants have already done so to the detriment
  of our commerce with China, but a further evidence of American
  aversion to the people of China may move the government of that
  country to take notice of the feeling in a way that might prove of
  a considerable damage to us."

The _Daily Commercial Bulletin_, of New York, in the course of a long
and well considered article on "China as a Market for Americans," after
commenting on the enterprising tendencies of the present government of
China, says:

  It is absolutely certain, that the opening up of China, with its
  enormous population, must, despite native views to the contrary,
  mean a great impetus to her foreign trade. The railroad ordered
  to be made will be followed by similar enterprises in other
  directions. The interior of China, of which we know so little, and
  the inhabitants of which know still less about us, will then be
  brought into contact with Western manufacturers; and it needs no
  spirit of prophecy to tell what the tremendous outcome of that will
  be. With an area of about 5,000,000 square miles, and a population
  of over 400,000,000 souls, the possibilities of international trade
  with the Chinese Empire in future generations are altogether beyond
  calculation.

  In this connection it will be well to examine our own position
  with regard to the commerce of China. A return recently issued by
  the Maritime Customs Office of that country gives the imports of
  foreign merchandise (apart from the junk trade with Hong Kong and
  Macao) for the year 1888 as $130,000,000--an increase on 1887 of 11
  per cent. This improvement is part of a continuous growth, as the
  imports for the following years show.

        1883     $91,500,000
        1884      90,000,000
        1885     110,000,000
        1886     109,000,000
        1887     117,500,000
        1888     130,000,000




  The increase in the six years is thus no less than 43 per cent. Of
  the total imports last year, cotton goods represent $55,000,000, or
  42 per cent. Our exports to China (exclusive of Hong Kong) were as
  follows:

  YEAR ENDING JUNE 30

        1883   $4,100,000
        1884    4,600,000
        1885    6,400,000
        1886    7,500,000
        1887    6,200,000
        1888    4,600,000

  These exports are made up almost entirely of cotton goods and
  petroleum. The exports of the former were greatest in 1887, when
  they reached $5,180,000, and of the latter in 1886, when they
  reached $2,400,000. For the year 1889 it is expected that the
  volume of imports into China will show the rate of expansion
  well maintained. For the year ending 30th June last our exports
  of cotton goods have fallen to $1,500,000, and of petroleum to
  $900,000--a decrease of 71 and 61 per cent, respectively from the
  best figures shown during the preceding six years. Thus, not only
  have we had no share in the increased imports into China, but have
  lost ground absolutely as well as relatively. In both leading
  divisions the decline can in some degree be traced to the natural
  effects of successful competition of other countries, notably
  Great Britain in cottons, and Russia in petroleum. It is certain,
  however, that it has been accelerated by the resentment aroused in
  China by our anti-Chinese legislation. The position demands the
  attention of our government as well as of our manufacturers, and
  we believe that when it is fully realized steps will be taken to
  regain the friendly interests of a nation whose possibilities are
  well nigh as great as our own.

The Japan _Gazette_, of Yokohama, 26th September, in a long article
on "The United States and China," referring to reported measures of
retaliation on the part of China for the treatment of the Chinese in
the United States, says:

  It is not easy to discover that any other course than the one which
  formed the subject matter of the conference remains for China to
  adopt as a counter thrust for the humiliation and indignity America
  has cast upon her. It is far from our desire to say that the United
  States was not perfectly justified in adopting the measure she
  did to prevent the celestial octopus stretching its vicious self
  over her territory. Justification in the highest existed. Chinese
  immigration thither had assumed alarming proportions and it was
  characterized by all those damning features ever associated with
  the Chinese element. The danger is one which faces America just
  as it has faced the Colonies, and it is well for those of our own
  color that it should be opposed by the best modes of defense. Only
  one result is aimed at, but it may be possible to achieve all
  that is desired by a plurality of methods. Perhaps America has
  not adopted the right one; at any rate she has clearly ruffled
  Chinese dignity. Such a decided act as hers, although, as we think,
  justified, was perhaps impolitic as the result indicates.

With these expressions of opinion as to the effect of the act and
its policy, as an introduction, we now proceed to give as briefly
as possible a record of the events that have led up to the present
condition of our relations with the Chinese and to the passage of the
Act referred to in its present form, in the Autumn of 1888.

The discovery of gold in California in 1848, an event which perhaps
more then any other in recent times has contributed to the commercial
and industrial growth of nations, first brought the people of the
United States into social and business relations with the Chinese.
Attracted by reports of the wealth to be found in our mines and excited
by the return of some of the pioneers of their race, bearing in their
hands the golden fruit of their toils, the stream of immigration began.
For twenty years it grew in volume until, in 1876, the number of
Chinese in California was about 100,000. A very much greater number had
come to this country, but a large proportion of them had returned to
their homes, and at the close of this period of twenty-seven years it
appears from the census reports that the number returning was nearly as
large as the number arriving.

The growth of this Chinese immigration directed attention to the
diplomatic relations between the government of China and the United
States. The first treaty with China in 1844, and the second treaty of
1858, were limited to the purpose of protecting American citizens doing
business in China. The important right secured by these treaties was
that by which Americans charged with offenses should be tried by United
States laws in Consular Courts. These treaties related exclusively to
the rights and privileges of Americans in China and defined the ports
or limits within which they might reside for the purposes of trade.

Mr. Hamilton Fish, our Secretary of State, in a communication to Mr.
Bancroft, then American Minister at Berlin, dated August 31, 1869,
says: "The communication between China and the outside world was merely
confined to the trading points. With the intellects that rule that
nation of 450 millions of people, with the men who gave it its ideas
and directed its policy, with its vast internal industries, with its
great agricultural population, the traders consuls and functionaries of
the ports rarely came into contact except in the contact of war.

The European Chinese policy was one of isolation, inasmuch as it only
sought the development of a foreign trade at certain particular ports,
and of disintegration, as it practically ignored the Central government
and made war upon the provinces to redress its grievances and enforce
its demands."

This describes the relations between China and the outside world, at
the time the emigration of her people to our Pacific coast was rapidly
increasing, and beginning to excite general interest. It may therefore
be readily conceived that when it was announced that Mr. Burlingame,
American Minister to China, had resigned his commission to accept
the post of Ambassador of China to the Western nations, it attracted
universal attention. When it became known that this appointment was
for the purpose of introducing China into the family of civilized
nations, and of removing the barriers which had hitherto excluded her
from intercourse with the great nations of the world, attention became
curiosity and curiosity was supplanted by a general sense of rejoicing
at this sudden conversion to the ways of modern civilization of a
nation comprising a quarter of the population of the globe.

Mr. Burlingame, in his capacity as Ambassador of China, negotiated a
treaty with the United States, described by Mr. Fish in the letter
above referred to, as follows: "The treaty negotiated by Mr. Burlingame
and his colleagues was a long step in another direction. It came
voluntarily from China and placed that power in theory on the same
diplomatic footing with the nations of the Western world. It recognized
the imperial government as the power to withhold or to grant further
commercial privileges, as also the power whose duty it is to enforce
the peaceful enjoyment of the rights already conferred."

"While it confirms the extra-territorial jurisdiction inferred by
former treaties upon European and American functionaries over the
persons and property of their countrymen, it recognizes at the same
time the territorial integrity of China, and prevents such jurisdiction
from being stretched beyond its original purpose. While it leaves in
China the sovereign power of granting to foreigners hereafter the right
to construct lines of railroads and telegraphs, of opening mines, of
navigating the rivers of the Empire with steamers and of otherwise
increasing the outlets of its wealth by the use of the appliances of
Western civilization, it contemplates that China shall avail herself
of these appliances by reasonable concessions to be made as public
necessities, and as the power of the government to influence public
opinion will permit."

Such was the view held by our Secretary of State of the value and
importance of the Burlingame Treaty of July, 1868. And pending its
ratification by the Chinese government, which was delayed for more
than a year, Mr. Fish expressed his solicitude in the following
language:

  "The President thinks it would be well to have defined by law,
  as soon as possible, the relations that are hereafter to exist
  between the United States and China. Many considerations call for
  this. Every month brings thousands of Chinese immigrants to the
  Pacific coast Already they have crossed the great mountains and are
  beginning to be found in the interior of the continent. By their
  assiduity, patience and fidelity, and by their intelligence, they
  earn the good will and confidence of those who employ them. We have
  good reason to think that this thing will continue and increase. On
  the other hand, in China, there will be an increase in the resident
  American and European population, not by any means commeasurate
  with the growth of Chinese immigration to this country, but
  corresponding with the growth of our country, with the development
  of its resources on the Pacific Slope, and with the new position in
  the commerce of the world which it takes with the completion of the
  Pacific Railroad."

There is reason to believe that the sentiments expressed by our
Secretary of State, in 1869, and by him attributed to President Grant,
were at that time the sentiments of the whole country, including the
Pacific coast.

The special features of the Burlingame Treaty may be found in Articles
V. and VI. In its other parts it substantially confirmed the provisions
of former treaties. Article V. contains the remarkable provision by
which both parties "recognize the inherent and inalienable right of
man to change his home and allegiance, and also the natural advantage
of the free migration and emigration of citizens and subjects from one
country to another for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent
residents."

This was peculiarly an American doctrine which had for many years been
a vexed subject of diplomatic negotiations with European countries,
and its recognition in the Burlingame Treaty was naturally regarded
as a great triumph. The same article provided for the prevention of
involuntary emigration, which, under the name "Coolie Trade," had
aroused the indignation of the civilized world.

Article VI. gave citizens of the United States in China all the rights
and privileges of citizens of the most favored nations, and to Chinese
in this country the same rights as were enjoyed by subjects of the most
favored nations.

President Hayes in his veto massage of Mar. 1, 1879, says: "The
principal feature on the Burlingame Treaty was its attention to and
its treatment of the Chinese immigration, and the Chinese, forming,
or as they should form, a part of our population." "Up to this time
our uncovenanted hospitality, our fearless liberality of citizenship,
our equal and comprehensive justice to all inhabitants, whether they
abjured their foreign nationality or not, our civil freedom, and our
religious toleration, had made all comers welcome, and, under these
protections, the Chinese, in considerable numbers, had made their
lodgment on our soil." "The Burlingame Treaty undertakes to deal
with this situation, and its Vth and VIth articles embrace its most
important provisions in this regard, and the main stipulations in which
the Chinese government has secured an obligatory protection of its
subjects within our territory."

In other words, the United States in consideration of certain
obligations assumed by China, entered into a solemn contract to treat
the Chinese coming to this country, as they always had been treated,
and as immigrants from all other countries had always been treated.

What had always been our custom became a treaty obligation in return
for certain covenants on the part of China, the chief of which was that
all involuntary emigration was to be forbidden and penalties imposed to
prevent it, and punish those who should in violation of the law engage
in it.

Senator Morton of Indiana, said, "that this treaty was regarded by the
whole nation as a grand triumph of American diplomacy and principles,
and Mr. Burlingame as a benefactor of his country."

It is essential to observe that at the time of the approval of this
treaty, and its recognition as a beneficial act for this country, the
Chinese had been here in great numbers for more than twenty years. The
record of their arrival as found in the Report of the Joint Special
Committee of Congress, in 1876, shows that the whole number of Chinese
in the United States at that time was about 114,000, and in California
about 94,000. Another witness makes it about 4,000 less. It also
appears that the largest arrivals were in the years 1848 to 1854. In
that period the arrivals were over 50,000 and the departures about
8,000, leaving in the country at the beginning of 1855 about 42,000--or
nearly half the whole number in California in 1876, twenty years later.
In 1869, the number had reached about 70,000, or three-fourths the
number found in California in 1876. It is therefore obvious that the
people of California and of the whole United States had had prior to
the approval of the Burlingame Treaty, ample opportunity to become
familiar with the character of the Chinese. Nevertheless the treaty
was welcomed which protected them in this country and encouraged their
immigration.

This reflection brings us to one of the most remarkable changes
of public sentiment on the Pacific coast, which has probably ever
characterized a people, a change as sudden as it was remarkable,
and as universal as it was sudden. Almost immediately after the
confirmation of the Burlingame Treaty, in 1869, murmurs began to be
heard in California, hostile to the Chinese. As early as December
22, 1869, an appeal was made to Congress for legislation to restrict
Chinese immigration. Each successive Congress was appealed to but
without effect until the 44th Congress, in 1876, appointed a joint
committee to take testimony, and in 1877 passed a resolution calling
on the President to "open negotiations with the Chinese government for
the purpose of modifying the provisions between the two countries and
restricting the same to commercial purposes." At the same time the
Legislature of California appointed a special committee to investigate
the subject and prepare a memorial to Congress. It was issued August,
1877, as an "Address to the people of the United States, upon the
social, moral and political effect of Chinese immigration." This
address contains evidence to prove that "the Chinaman is a factor
hostile to the prosperity, the progress and the civilization of the
American people."

The report of the Joint Committee of Congress, February, 1877, which
fills a large volume of nearly 1,300 pages, contains similar evidence
in greater detail, showing the unfitness of the Chinese, by their
social and moral characteristics, by their religion and by their
peculiar and apparently ineradicable desire to return to their native
country, dead or alive--to form part of our population, to amalgamate
with or be absorbed into it, as other races have been. It points out
the fact that they come here, as a rule, without wives or children,
live apart from other races, form no attachments to the soil or to our
people, and by their lack of family relations and children present
no facilities for association with our people, and no opportunities
for growing into conditions or habits, which would tend to make them
ultimately homogeneous with us. Furthermore, it was claimed by many
witnesses, that the Chinese were a festering mass of corruption in
the body politic, threatening to destroy the moral and physical health
of the people, and that there were no other means of preventing this
result than for the government to intervene, and by some modification
of the treaty with China, check Chinese immigration.

The evidence on the other side was no less complete, showing the
virtue, integrity, cleanliness, industry, skill, peaceableness, and, in
general, the desirableness of the Chinese as an industrial element of
our population.

It must be acknowledged that the witnesses on this side of the case
were, as a rule, of the highest personal character, men of great
intelligence, familiar, by practical relations, with the Chinese in
various capacities, and many of them men who had learned the character
of the Chinese by long residence in China.

It is also apparent that the conduct of the examination was in a spirit
of bitter hostility to the Chinese and with a determination rather to
prove the case against them than to ascertain the truth. The report as
presented to Congress by Senator Sargent, of California, representing
a majority of the joint committee, is adverse to the Chinese and
recommends immediate steps to restrict the privileges granted by the
treaty. On the other hand Senator Oliver P. Morton, the chairman of
the committee, who heard patiently all the testimony, in a fragmentary
paper, intended as the basis for a minority report, which was printed
by order of the Senate after Mr. Morton's death, took strong grounds
in favor of maintaining the treaty. He says: "The testimony shows that
the intellectual capacity of the Chinese is fully equal that of white
people. Their ability to acquire the mechanic arts and to imitate every
process and form of workmanship, ranks very high, and was declared by
many witnesses to be above that of white people, and their general
intellectual power to understand and master any subject presented to
the human understanding, to be quite equal to that of any other race"
His conclusions are briefly embodied in the following sentences: "As
Americans, charged with the administration of the laws by which equal
rights and protection shall be extended to all races and conditions, we
cannot now safely take a new departure which, in another form, shall
resurrect and re-establish those odious distinctions of race which
brought upon us the late civil war, and from which we fondly hoped
that God in his providence had delivered us forever." "If the Chinese
in California were white people, being in all other respects what they
are, I do not believe that the complaints and warfare against them
would have existed to any considerable extent." "Their difference in
color, dress, manners and religion have, in my judgment, more to do
with this hostility than their alleged vices, or any actual injury to
the white people of California." He further adds, by way of suggestion
of a remedy for their persecution: "Complete protection can be given
them only by allowing them to become citizens and acquire the rights of
suffrage when their votes would become important in elections and their
persecutions in great part converted into kindly solicitation."

These are the opinions of one who was doubtless the largest minded
man on the committee, and who, being free from local influences and
prejudices, and evidently aiming only at conclusions which were
sustained by the testimony, justly commands from the disinterested
inquirer, the highest degree of confidence.

We have been thus prolix in comments upon the report of the joint
committee, because it was the basis of all subsequent acts relating to
the Chinese, and must be considered as the most complete testimony on
the Chinese question on both sides.

It would be impracticable to follow the debates on this question which
have to a greater or less extent occupied the attention of Congress and
the country from the time this report was made down to the present day.
On the one side was urged our duty to humanity and to the principles
of human liberty on which our government is founded; the importance
of maintaining friendly relations with China, for religious and moral
as well as for commercial purposes; the unreasonableness of the fears
which prevailed in some quarters that the Chinese would overrun this
country, or reduce its standard of civilization. It was shown that
the emigration was limited to a district of China about the size of
Connecticut, and for reasons founded upon peculiarities of language and
inherited habits, would never affect the population of China outside of
this region. It was shown that this class of Chinese was distinguished
for thrift, integrity and cleanliness.

On the other side while admitting the importance of the general
propositions as to our treaty obligations, and humanitarian reasons,
the arguments and facts brought forward by the friends of the Chinese
were diametrically contradicted. The coming of the Chinese was
denounced as a horrible invasion, tending to dishonor labor, corrupt
our morals and disintegrate our civilization. Into the discussion from
the start has been injected a political issue, which has determined
every vote taken in Congress; the issue as to the partisan control of
the Pacific States. To illustrate this fact we call to mind the famous
Morey letter, a forgery, imputed to Gen. Garfield in October, 1880,
in which he was made to favor the importation of Chinese labor, in
order to defeat his election. Both Republicans and Democrats feared
the consequence of opposing the wishes of the people of California
and the adjoining States. And no one could doubt what their wishes
were respecting Chinese immigration. For this reason, from the outset,
the veto of the President has been the only barrier in defense of our
treaty obligations and of the rights of the Chinese in the United
States.

The next move in the direction of a change was a resolution by
Congress, early in 1878, requesting President Hayes "to open
correspondence immediately with a view of securing a change or
abrogation of all stipulations in existing treaties which permit
unlimited immigration of Chinese to the United States." This resolution
never reached the President, and therefore nothing was done. Early
in 1879 the Committee on Education and Labor introduced "an act to
restrict the immigration of Chinese to the United States." This was
the first of a series of acts passed for the same purpose. It limited
the number of Chinese passengers by any one vessel to fifteen, and
was vetoed by President Hayes for the general reason that it was in
violation of treaty stipulations. He adds the special reason that, "the
recession of emigration from China to the Pacific coast relieves us
from any apprehension that the treatment of the subject by the proper
course of diplomatic negotiations will introduce any new features of
discontent or disturbance among the communities directly affected," and
he deprecates violation of our treaties with China as more injurious
than any local inconveniences.

In reference to this last mentioned act, a special meeting of the
Chamber of Commerce was held on the 27th of February, 1879, at which
earnest addresses were made in opposition to the passage of the Act by
Messrs. A. A. Low, Wm. H. Fogg, Elliot C. Cowdin, Jackson S. Shultz,
Charles Watrous and Isaac Phillips.

Resolutions, embodying this sentiment and calling on the Government to
fulfil its treaty stipulations, were unanimously adopted.

Similar resolutions were adopted in various places, chiefly along the
Atlantic coast.

Meantime the voters of California, in September, 1879, in conformity
with a recent law of the State, met at the polls to express the wishes
of the people respecting Chinese immigration. For Chinese immigration
there were cast 883 votes, against it were 154,638 votes, and the
entire vote of the State was cast within less than 4,000. In Nevada the
vote was 183 for and 17,259 against it.

In March, 1880, the Committee of the House of Representatives on the
Causes of the Depression of Labor, submitted a report attributing much
of the existing trouble to the presence of the Chinese. Although the
minority condemned this view, and charged the majority with prejudice,
the report resulted in an inquiry addressed to the President respecting
the step% if any, which had been taken to change the Burlingame
Treaty. To this Secretary Evarts replied that no definite measures had
been concluded, but "that preparation had been laid for a conclusive
disposition of the matter." Following this, at an early date, came
the appointment of James B. Angel, John F. Swift and Wm. Henry
Trescot, Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the United States to China,
for the purpose of securing, by friendly negotiation, the desired
modification of the Burlingame Treaty. They were cordially received by
the Chinese government, and "two Chinese Commissioners of high rank
and large influence, both members of the Privy Council of State,"
were appointed, with full powers to consider their demands. After a
comparatively brief discussion, which was marked on the part of the
Chinese government by courtesy and by a friendly desire to treat with
great consideration the wishes of the United States, the modifications
were agreed to and a new treaty was signed on the 17th of November,
1880.

Secretary Evarts, in a letter to the President dated Jan. 10, 1881,
says: "The treaty submitted settles the questions raised between
the two countries, in a manner alike honorable and satisfactory to
both. While preserving to the subjects of China engaged in mercantile
pursuits, in study, in teaching or in travel for curiosity, the right
of free intercourse with this country, the Chinese government has
recognised, in the government of the United States, the right to
regulate, limit and suspend the introduction into its territory of
Chinese labor, whenever in its discretion such introduction shall
threaten the good order of any locality or endanger any interest."
Early in 1881 this treaty became the law of the land by the approval
of the Senate, and was followed in the same year by an act passed in
the Senate, "to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to the
Chinese." This act provided that, "from and after the expiration
of ninety days next after the passage of this act and until the
expiration of twenty years, the coming of Chinese laborers to the
United States be and the same is hereby suspended." The remainder
of the act provides for the execution of this purpose, and defines
the word laborers to mean both "skilled and unskilled laborers and
Chinese employed in mining." This measure was thoroughly debated in
both branches of Congress and these discussions cover the entire
controversy. President Arthur returned the bill to the Senate, April
4, 1882, with his objections, which were substantially that, while
the treaty gave the United States the right to limit and regulate the
immigration of Chinese laborers, it did not authorize a prohibition,
and that suspension for twenty years was essentially prohibition. This
veto message is a valuable statement of the importance of maintaining
friendly relations with China, and sustaining the traditional repute of
the United States for good faith in its relations with foreign nations.
It concludes as follows: "It may be that the great and paramount
interest of protecting our labor from Asiatic competition, may justify
us in a permanent adoption of this policy. But it is wiser in the
first place to make a shorter experiment, with a view hereafter of
maintaining permanently only such features as time and experience may
commend."

The bill failed to pass over the veto, and on May 6, 1883, another bill
was passed and approved by the President, substantially the same as the
previous one, but substituting ten years for the twenty years, provided
for in the original measure. It should be stated that it was provided
in this act that Chinese laborers in this country, or on the way to
the United States at the time of the passage of the act, should have
the right to leave or return to the United States on adequate proof
of the facts. This act seems to have been satisfactory to the Chinese
government, and together with measures previously adopted, checked the
increase of Chinese immigration. The census of 1880 gives the total
Chinese population in the United States at 105,000, of which 75,000
were in California. And from the evidence of their immigration since
1880, it appears that the arrivals are offset by their departures,
so that there has been no material increase of our Chinese labor
population since 1876. It is stated officially that in the three years
ending Aug. 1, 1885, "the Chinese population in the country decreased
by fully 20,000," a conclusion sustained by the steady advance of
Chinese labor on the Pacific coast during that period.

But complaints were continually coming from the Pacific coast of the
violation of the provisions of the act of 1882, and supplementary
measures were adopted from time to time to enforce its provisions,
always however keeping within the limits of our treaty obligations. The
act itself came before the U. S. Supreme Court in California, which
held it to be within the limits of the Treaty of 1880.

A portion of Mr. Justice Field's opinion, Sept. 24, 1883, in the case
referred to is interesting as stating the most enlightened view of the
people of California on the subject of Chinese immigration. He says:

  In the treaty of July 28, 1868, commonly known as the Burlingame
  Treaty, the contracting parties declare that "they recognize the
  inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and
  allegiance; and also the mutual advantage of free migration and
  emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from one
  country to the other for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as
  permanent residents." In its sixth article they declare that
  citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China shall
  enjoy the same privileges, immunities, or exemptions in respect to
  travel or residence as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects
  of the most favored nations; and reciprocally, Chinese subjects
  visiting or residing In the United States shall enjoy the same
  privileges, immunities, or exemptions in respect to travel or
  residence as may there be enjoyed by citizens or subjects of the
  most favored nations.

  Before these articles were adopted a great number of Chinese had
  emigrated to this State [California], and after their adoption the
  Immigration largely increased. But notwithstanding the favorable
  provisions of the treaty, it was found impossible for them to
  assimilate with our people. Their physical characteristics and
  habits kept them as distinct and separate as though still living
  in China. They engaged in all the industries and pursuits of the
  State; they came in competition with white laborers in every
  direction; and their frugal habits, the absence of families, their
  singular ability to live in narrow quarters without apparent
  injury to health, their contentment with the simplest fare, gave
  them In this competition great advantages over our laborers and
  mechanics (7 Sawyer, 549). They could live with apparent comfort
  on what would prove almost starvation to white men. Our laborers
  and mechanics are not content, and never should be, with the means
  of bare subsistence. They must have something beyond this for the
  comforts of a home, the support of a family, and the education
  of children. Competition with Chinese labor under the conditions
  mentioned was necessarily Irritating and exasperating, and often
  led to collisions between persons of the two races. It was seen
  that without some restriction upon the immigration of Chinese,
  white laborers and mechanics would be driven from the State. They
  looked, therefore, with great apprehension toward the crowded
  millions of China and of the adjacent islands In the Pacific, and
  felt that there was more than a possibility of such multitudes
  coming as to make a residence here unendurable. It was perceived
  by thoughtful men, looking to the possibilities of the future,
  that the Immigration of the Chinese must be stopped if we would
  preserve this land for our people and their posterity, and protect
  the laborer from a competition degrading in its character and
  ruinous to his hopes of material and social advancement. There
  went up, therefore, most urgent appeals from the Pacific coast to
  the government of the United States to take such measures as would
  stop the further coming of Chinese laborers. The effect of these
  appeals was the sending of commissioners to China to negotiate for
  a modification of the Treaty of 1868. The Supplementary Treaty of
  1880 was the result. It authorized legislation restricting the
  immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States whenever our
  government should be of the opinion that their coming would affect
  or threaten the interest of the country or endanger its good order,
  but expressly stipulated that its provisions should not apply to
  other classes coming to the United States.

It may be mentioned here that among the decisions which grew out of
this act, was one to the effect that nothing therein prevented the
transit of Chinese passengers across the country, whether laborers or
others.

Notwithstanding the plain evidence that the acts of Congress to execute
the Treaty of 1880 were effectual and that former causes of alarm
growing out of the rapid increase of the Chinese laboring population
had been substantially removed, the irritation seemed not wholly to
have ceased, and it was made the ground of further legislation hostile
to the Chinese, though always with protestations of good faith, and
conformity with treaty obligations. Nevertheless these measures and
their execution were often the subject of friendly remonstrance on
the part of the Chinese Minister at Washington, who in a letter to
Secretary Bayard, March 9, 1886, claims that "the guarantees so
explicitly set forth in the treaty stipulations made between China
and the United States have not been made good." He adds politely that
"he feels sure that the government of the United States would not
intentionally injure its established reputation by even a seeming
neglect to provide the means for the complete fulfilment of all treaty
obligations."

We now come to the year 1888, during which was to be determined whether
the Democratic administration of the government should be continued.
Both of the great political parties began early to manœuvre for
position and to plan for the capture of votes. Among the questions
which had in previous years largely determined the issue in the Pacific
States, was the question of Chinese immigration.

In March, 1888, a resolution was passed in the Senate and transmitted
to the President, "That in view of the difficulties and embarrassments
that have attended the regulation of the immigration of Chinese
laborers to the United States, under the limitations of our treaty
with China, the President of the United States be requested to
negotiate a treaty with the Emperor of China, containing a provision
that no Chinese laborer shall enter the United Sates."

To this, the President replied that "negotiation for a treaty was
commenced many months ago and has since continued," and he expressed,
"the hope and expectation that a treaty will soon be concluded
concerning the immigration of Chinese laborers, which will meet the
wants of our people, and the approbation of the Senate."

After prolonged discussion between Mr. Bayard, our Secretary of State,
and Mr. Chang Yen Hoon, the Chinese Minister at Washington, a new
treaty was agreed upon on the 12th of March, 1888, and approved by the
Senate in the course of a few weeks afterwards. This treaty declares:
"Whereas the government of China, in view of the antagonisms and much
deprecated and serious disorders to which the presence of Chinese
laborers has given rise in the United States, desires to prohibit the
emigration of such laborers from China to the United States," and
proceeds to agree in Art. I., that for a period of twenty years, the
coming of Chinese laborers shall be absolutely prohibited, with certain
exceptions, including such as may have wives or property amounting to
$1,000 in this country, and shall return here after an absence of not
more than one year.

It provides for the maintenance of former stipulations concerning other
classes of Chinese, and that laborers may have the right of transit
across the country. It also provides that Chinese of all classes in the
country shall have all the rights and privileges of the most favored
nations, except that of naturalization, and the United States agrees to
protect them in such rights.

This treaty was to remain in force twenty years and be continued
indefinitely after that time unless formal notice should be given by
either side of intention to terminate it.

On the 12th of May, 1888, the Chinese Minister wrote to Mr. Bayard that
he had sent the treaty to his government for ratification.

On the 5th of September the Senate by resolution inquired of the
President "whether the recent treaty with China had been ratified by
the Emperor."

In reply to this the President transmitted dispatches from our
Minister in China, first, to the effect that no "information had been
received," and, second, that the "treaty had been postponed for further
deliberation."

Pending the further deliberation of which our Minister in China had
given notice, a bill was introduced in the Senate of the United States
to enact into law the provisions of the proposed treaty and provide for
their execution. This bill was approved on the 13th of September, 1888;
and, as if not satisfied with this act of disrespect to a friendly
government, which had frankly conceded our demands, and was at the time
deliberating upon the formal approval of the treaty which accorded
them, another bill was introduced into Congress for similar purposes,
but still more aggravating to the Chinese government It was passed and
finally approved October 1, 1888. It provides "that from and after the
passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any Chinese laborer who
shall at any time heretofore have been, or who may now or hereafter be,
a resident within the United States, and who shall have departed or
shall depart therefrom and shall not have returned before the passage
of this act, to return to or remain in the United States; that no
certificate of identity, etc., shall be issued, and every certificate
heretofore issued is declared void, and the Chinese laborer claiming
admission by virtue thereof shall not be permitted to enter the United
States." It further repeals all parts of the act of 1882 which may be
inconsistent with this act.

In a message to Congress, dated October 1, 1888, in which President
Cleveland signifies his approval of the act just above referred to,
he enters into a formal apology for the conduct of the government
in refusing to await the deliberations of the Chinese government
The President states that on the 21st September he had received a
telegram from our Minister in China "announcing the refusal to exchange
ratifications unless further discussion could be had," and that in view
of this refusal "an emergency had arisen in which the government of the
United States is called upon to act in self defense by the exercise of
its legislative power."

The official correspondence submitted with this message shows that
while the general purpose of the treaty was approved by the Chinese
government some of the details caused dissatisfaction to the Chinese
people, and for that reason the Chinese government desired that the
treaty should be reconsidered.

A communication from the Chinese legation in Washington, dated Sept
25, 1888, informs Secretary Bayard that the Chinese Minister would
return to Washington in twenty-two or twenty-three days to reopen
the discussion of some of these details and hopes, from the cordial
relations which have hitherto existed between the two governments, that
satisfactory conclusions will be reached.

But on the 18th of September, a week before the above correspondence
took place, Secretary Bayard sent the following dispatch to our
Minister in China:--"Denby, Minister, Peking: The bill has passed
both houses of Congress for total exclusion of Chinese, and awaits
President's approval. Public feeling on the Pacific coast excited in
favor of it, and situation critical. Impress on government of China
necessity for instant decision in the interest of treaty relations and
amity. Bayard." Imagine the effect of this lash and spur applied to the
stately and exalted Emperor of China and his dignified counsellors,
especially in view of the courtesy and conciliation with which they had
uniformly treated our government and its representatives.

Minister Denby replied, on Sept 21st, that the Chinese government
refused ratification unless after further consideration of details, and
this it was preparing to give, as shown by the correspondence of Sept.
26th, already quoted.

The extraordinary haste with which our government proceeded thus
to affront its ancient friend--to override its formal treaty
stipulations, and substitute arbitrary legislation for diplomatic
negotiations--presents a spectacle to which no American can well
recur without a sense of mortification that the government of the
United States should have shown itself so far inferior in courtesy and
justice to the government of a nation, ordinarily, though erroneously,
considered barbarian.

It is difficult to discover the emergency to which the President refers
as his justification. It is evident that under existing treaties with
China and the laws enacted in pursuance thereof, the objections to
Chinese immigration had been substantially removed. The difficulties
which remained were only in details, to secure the more perfect
execution of the laws. The Chinese had ceased to come in dangerous
numbers. Those who were here were spreading over the country, learning
our language and usages, and everywhere proving themselves a quiet, law
abiding and inoffensive people. The complaints, which formerly were
heard, of their depressing influence on wages and labor, had ceased to
be frequent or urgent. The Chinese were found to be apt in demanding
high wages, as they were commendable in saving them. Nowhere in the
country was there any pressing demand for this class legislation. It
can be explained only on the theory that a presidential election was
pending, and that a demonstration must be made to capture the vote of
the Pacific States. It may be said that these harsh and unnecessary
measures, which were adopted just before the election of 1888, were
not vigorously opposed by the anti-administration party, for reasons
similar to those which inspired the promoters of those measures.

To close this already too lengthy statement of the circumstances which
have led up to our present relations with China, it may be added that
the Supreme Court of the United States has this year affirmed the
constitutionality of the Chinese Exclusion Act, so called, on the broad
ground of the power of Congress to abrogate a treaty. And it cannot
be denied that the act itself, and the decision of the Supreme Court,
were received with great satisfaction by the people of California: On
this subject the San Francisco _Chronicle_, perhaps the best exponent
of public opinion on the Pacific coast, and in politics an earnest
Republican, concludes as follows:

  So it is settled by the highest authority in the land that the
  Chinese laborer cannot come to the United States to compete with
  our own workingmen on our own soil. The effect of this decision
  cannot fail to be salutary. It must result in dignifying labor
  by removing it from enforced competition with what is virtually
  servile labor; for as surely as debased coin will drive honest coin
  out of circulation, so surely will the presence of servile labor in
  a community cast a stigma upon free labor and drive it out of the
  market.

  Now the process of elimination can begin in earnest, and in place
  of the departing coolie we may look for that kind of labor which
  builds up a community and adds to the growth and prosperity of a
  nation. Now we may with a dear conscience invite labor from the
  older States, and insure it against being met on the threshold of
  California by a horde of Mongolians who can underbid any white
  labor and put it to flight. Now the regeneration of California can
  really begin; and if we desire to add another annual holiday to our
  list we may well celebrate the 13th of May, the day of the final
  decision of the Chae Chan Ping case.

In the presence of these convictions, representing the sense of that
part of the American people who have the best opportunity of knowing
the effect of Chinese immigration--and who have at an earlier day
expressed their judgment by the emphatic vote of 800 for and 154,000
against Chinese immigration--there can be no question as to the
propriety of terminating that immigration so far as it may be offensive
to that important part of this nation which it most closely affects.

But with this acknowledgement our approval of the anti-Chinese measures
of the late administration ceases. And we do not hesitate to express
profound regret that it was found expedient to abandon the ordinary
and regular methods of international negotiation to secure the desired
results and substitute for them the arbitrary decrees of legislation.
Especially is this action of our government to be regretted in view of
the friendly attitude of the Chinese government, which had entertained
with perfect cordiality our objections to their laboring people in this
country and had shown their willingness to do whatever seemed necessary
to remove them.

The effect of this conduct on the part of our government, which
cannot fail to be considered by the Chinese government and people
as arbitrary, discourteous and unfriendly, upon the relations of
our people with the government and people of China is a subject in
regard to which those best qualified to decide seem to have an almost
unanimous opinion. This opinion has already been expressed in the
extracts from American and foreign journals with which this report
was introduced. They may be supplemented by numerous letters recently
received by the Chamber of Commerce from merchants and missionaries in
China. These letters are submitted to the Chamber herewith. But from
some of them a few brief extracts will be found pertinent.

From Canton, Aug. 22, '89. A gentleman who has been a resident of
that place more than forty years writes: "The government of China has
considered the treaty made by Secretary Bayard and the Chinese Minister
in the most friendly spirit. It only refused to ratify it owing to
some additions made in the Senate to which the consent of the Chinese
Minister had not been given. There is no doubt that a little diplomacy
would have secured the acceptance of that treaty with very slight
modifications." He says further: "The Chinese government has been very
forbearing. This, however, does not imply that it does not feel the
indignity most keenly. This people will bide their time."

From Shanghai, Aug. 14, '89. The Chamber of Commerce of Shanghai, to
which was submitted various questions on the subject, says: "It is our
opinion that as regards Shanghai, at any rate, it is incorrectly stated
that Chinese officials discriminate between American and other foreign
residents."

From Shanghai, Aug. 9, '89. The Head Master of St John's College
writes: "I do not think that trade interests in Shanghai are in any
way affected by the Exclusion Act Among the educated Chinese there is a
strong feeling and the insult to their nation is deeply felt."

Frazer & Co., merchants, write from Shanghai, Aug. 7, '89. "According
to the best of our knowledge and belief, it is not true, as reported in
the press, that American interests in China are suffering by reason of
this law." "If any feeling of hostility has been generated in the minds
of Chinese officials it has been caused by the rough and ready way in
which the act has been passed."

Rev. Henry V. Noyes, now in this country, but many years resident of
China and a careful observer, writes Aug. 30, '89:

  "The antagonistic policy pursued by our government of late toward
  China, if persisted in, must in the end be injurious to American
  interests, both commercial and missionary. The Chinese are a long
  remembering as well as a long suffering people, and they understand
  well how to use the boycott principle when they consider it
  expedient."

Mr. B. C. Henry writes from Canton, Sept. 9, '89: "There is a
widespread feeling that the Chinese are sure to retaliate, and if their
policy of retaliation is not yet divulged it is only because in their
opinion the time has not come to inaugurate it. They are not likely to
forget that glaring injustice."

A clergyman in Shanghai writes Sept. 20, '89: "Although the Americans
were in greater favor than any other people previous to this obnoxious
enactment, our popularity has suffered, and the officers are sure to
discriminate against our people to the advantage of other nations
without, of course, giving the reasons."

In view of the facts here presented, and of the opinion widely
expressed, concerning the effects of the arbitrary action of our
government in the passage of the recent acts for exclusion of Chinese
laborers from the United States, the Committee on Foreign Commerce and
the Revenue Laws would now recommend that measures be taken by the
government of the United States to reopen the negotiations which were
unfortunately interrupted and terminated by act of Congress approved by
President Cleveland, October 1, 1888. It is believed by your committee
that the change in the administration which has taken place since that
act was passed, will readily permit a renewal of negotiations at the
point where they ceased in September, 1888, and that the government
of China will recognize and appreciate favorably a movement on the
part of the government of the United States looking to a peaceful and
friendly adjustment of all questions in dispute, and to a restoration
of the cordial good feelings that have always, till now, marked the
intercourse of the two governments.

It is not proposed, nor even suggested, that the government of
the United States should open the way for the revival of Chinese
immigration, in violation of the convictions so long entertained and so
earnestly expressed by our fellow citizens of the Pacific States.

But it is reasonable to believe from the tenor of the expressions of
Chinese officials and of our own representatives in China, that if
the Chinese government is frankly approached by the government of the
United States, it will cordially respond in the same spirit, and will
willingly enter into negotiations for a treaty agreement which will
be satisfactory to both governments, and put an end to the bitterness
which now seems to endanger the welfare of American citizens--whether
missionaries or merchants--in China, and to threaten our commercial
relations with China which promise to become of vast importance to
our people, with the advancing culture and development of the Chinese
Empire.

In the words of the Hon. John A. Kasson, spoken during the debates in
Congress, in 1882:

  "It is not a debased empire. Its higher authorities are the
  peers of European and American statesmen. We have here the
  representatives of that people, who are orderly, who are seeking
  education, who are in responsible places, who are entitled to
  respect.

  "Let us be careful that we do not forfeit the friendship of a great
  empire, to be still greater in the future when she shall have
  accepted more and more of the principles of progress which animate
  us. Let us take care that we do not forfeit that friendship, and
  let us assure that great government of the honesty and good faith
  of this government and of the people of the United States."

Your Committee respectfully recommends the adoption of the following
resolutions:

  _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be and he
  hereby is respectfully requested to open negotiations with the
  Government of China for a peaceful and friendly adjustment of all
  questions between the two Governments, and for a restoration of
  the cordial good feelings which have always hitherto marked their
  intercourse.

  _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce be and he
  is hereby instructed to transmit to the President of the United
  States, to the members of his Cabinet and to the members of each
  House of Congress a copy of the foregoing resolution, together with
  a copy of the accompanying report.

                                                  Edward H. Ammidown, }
                                                  Francis B. Thurber, }
                                                  Charles Watrous,    }
                                                  Gustav H. Schwab,   }
                                                  Stephen W. Carey,   }

New York, December 3d, 1889.

       *       *       *       *       *


Transcriber Note


On page 8, the word after the phrase, "extra-territorial jurisdiction"
was misprinted. The best guess as to what it says is "inferred". A
search of the Internet could not resolve this question!