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

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 , 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 . 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 manoeuvre 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."

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.

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."

"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.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet