Part 2

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."