Part 1

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.