Read Ebook: The Chinese Exclusion Act Report and Resolutions Adopted by the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York by New York Chamber Of Commerce

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 106 lines and 14729 words, and 3 pages

Produced by: Tom Cosmas compiled from materials made available at The Internet Archive and are placed in the Public Domain

THE

Chinese Exclusion Act.

REPORT AND RESOLUTIONS

ADOPTED BY THE

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK.

December 5, 1889.

New York:

Press of De Leeuw & Oppenheimer,

New York.

The Chinese Exclusion Act.

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.

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 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."

"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."

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 for the year 1888 as 0,000,000--an increase on 1887 of 11 per cent. This improvement is part of a continuous growth, as the imports for the following years show.

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

YEAR ENDING JUNE 30

These exports are made up almost entirely of cotton goods and petroleum. The exports of the former were greatest in 1887, when they reached ,180,000, and of the latter in 1886, when they reached ,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 ,500,000, and of petroleum to 0,000--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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet