Part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Committee respectfully recommends the adoption of the following resolutions:

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

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

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

New York, December 3d, 1889.

* * * * *

Transcriber Note

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