them, Congress decided it would be more just and economical to extend the period for obtaining certificates. Accordingly a law was passed, and approved on November 3, 1893, granting an additional six months for the taking out of certificates.

THE CHINESE TREATY OF 1894

Shortly after the passage of these acts China asked for the opening of negotiations looking to a new treaty. Negotiations were successful, and on December 8, 1894, a treaty was proclaimed. This provided for the exclusion of all Chinese laborers for a term of ten years. Those going back to China were allowed to return here, providing they had a wife, child, or parent, or property worth $1000 somewhere in the United States. Registration was still required. It practically covered the same grounds as existing legislation, except that the act of October 1, 1888, refusing to Chinese laborers the right to return, was repealed.

After the annexation of Hawaii, on July 7, 1898, Chinese immigration to these islands was declared to be regulated by the laws of the United States. On April 30, 1900, provision was made for the registering of all the Chinese in these islands, and Chinese living there were forbidden to enter continental United States.

THE CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAW OF 1902

As the time came for the lapse of the period of exclusion provided by the act of 1892, interest in the exclusion laws again became intense, especially on the Pacific coast. A convention held in San Francisco on November 22, 1901, and composed of more than 1000 representatives of county supervisors, city councils, and trade, commercial, and civic organizations, declared for a continuance of the exclusion laws.

The Chinese minister, in a letter to the Secretary of States dated December 10, 1901, brought the matter to the attention of the United States, "urging an adjustment of the question, involved more in harmony with the friendly relations of the two Governments."

On the 16th of January, 1902, Senator Mitchell, of Oregon, introduced a bill to prohibit the coming of Chinese into the United States and regulating their residence within her territories. A similar bill was introduced in the House by Mr. Kahn, of California. On March 26, 1902, the Committee on Foreign Affairs reported Mr. Kahn's bill with a substitute. Several provisions of the bill were stricken out because they were considered unconstitutional. The committee proposed excluding all Chinese laborers, but wanted to avoid any discourtesy or annoyance to any genuine merchants, students, etc., on the ground that this attitude was necessary in the interests of commerce with China. It also struck out a clause forbidding the employment of Chinese on ships carrying the American flag on the Pacific Ocean, because of the injury that would accrue to American shipping. Following in the main the committee's recommendations, the bill passed the House. The clause relating to seamen, however, was restored and all laws were extended to the insular possessions.

In the Senate the Mitchell and Kahn bills were considered too severe, and before passing that body they were amended by providing that all existing laws be reënacted, to continue in force until a new treaty should be negotiated. As amended the bill passed by a vote of 76 to 1; not voting, II. Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, who cast the single opposing vote, still upheld his early position that he could not support legislation which discriminated against race. The House refused to concur in the amendments of the Senate, but the report of the conference was adopted in the Senate and the House on April 28. The President approved it April 29, 1902.

THE CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAW OF 1904

Upon the refusal of China to continue the treaty of 1894 after 1904, on April 27, 1904, Congress again reenacted, extending and continuing, without modification, limitation, or condition, all laws then in force in so far as they were not inconsistent with treaty obligations.

By the act of 1904 all existing legislation was continued in force until otherwise provided by law. All legislation was extended to the insular possessions, and Chinese immigration

from these islands to the United States, or from one island group to another, was prohibited, although moving from island to island of the same group was allowed. Certificates of residence were also required in the insular possessions. The law of 1904 is still in force.

During 1906 the question of Japanese immigration became acute, and the Pacific States demanded exclusion legislation for the Japanese of the same sort as existed for the Chinese. This was finally settled in the passport provision inserted in the immigration law of February 20, 1907. This provision authorized the President to refuse admission to any aliens making use of passports to the insular possessions, the Canal Zone, or any country other than the United States, to gain admission to the continental United States. The President in his proclamation of March 14, 1907, availed himself of this provision and excluded "Japanese or Korean laborers, skilled or unskilled, who have received passports to go to Mexico, Canada, or Hawaii, and come therefrom." To give this full force, an understanding with Japan was reached that the existing policy of discouraging the emigration of her subjects to this country should be continued. This agreement, by which the two Governments coöperate to secure an effective enforcement of the regulation

contemplates that the Japanese Government shall issue passports to continental United States only to such of its subjects as are nonlaborers, or are laborers who, in coming to the continent, seek to resume a formerly acquired domicile, to join a parent, wife, or children residing there, or to assume active control of an already possessed interest in a farming enterprise in this country.

WH

RESTRICTION OF IMMIGRATION1

GENERAL FRANCIS A. WALKER

HEN we speak of the restriction of immigration, at the present time, we have not in mind measures undertaken for the purpose of straining out, from the vast throng of foreigners arriving at our ports, a few hundreds, or possibly thousands, of persons, deaf, dumb, blind, idiotic, insane, pauper, or criminal who might otherwise become a hopeless burden upon the country, perhaps even an active source of mischief. The propriety, and even the necessity, of adopting such measures is now conceded by men of all shades of opinion concerning the larger subject. There is even noticeable a rather severe public feeling regarding the admission of persons of any of the classes named above; perhaps one might say, a certain resentment at the attempt of such persons to impose themselves upon us. We already have laws which cover a considerable part of this ground; and so far as further legislation is needed, it will only be necessary for the proper executive department of the government to call the attention of Congress to the subject. There is a serious effort on the part of our immigration officers to enforce the regulations prescribed, though when it is said that more than five thousand persons have passed through the gates at Ellis Island, in New York harbor, during the course of a single day, it will be seen that no very careful scrutiny is practicable.

It is true that in the past there has been gross and scandalous neglect of this matter on the part both of government and people, here in the United States. For nearly two generations, great numbers of persons utterly unable to earn their living, by reason of one or another form of physical or mental disability, and others who were, from widely different causes, Economics and Statistics," Vol. II, pp. 437-450. Henry Holt and

1 From

Co., 1899.

unfit to be members of any decent community, were admitted to our ports without challenge or question. It is a matter of official record that in many cases these persons had been directly shipped to us by states or municipalities desiring to rid themselves of a burden and a nuisance; while it could reasonably be believed that the proportion of such instances. was far greater than could be officially ascertained. But all this is of the past. The question of the restriction of immigration to-day does not deal with that phase of the subject. What is proposed is, not to keep out some hundreds, or possibly thousands, of persons, against whom lie specific objections like those above indicated, but to exclude perhaps hundreds of thousands, the great majority of whom would be subject to no individual objections; who, on the contrary, might fairly be expected to earn their living here in this new country, at least up to the standard known to them at home, and probably much more. The question to-day is, not of preventing the wards of our almshouses, our insane asylums, and our jails from being stuffed to repletion by new arrivals from Europe; but of protecting the American rate of wages, the American standard of living, and the quality of American citizenship from degradation through the tumultuous access of vast throngs of ignorant and brutalized peasantry from the countries of eastern and southern Europe.

The first thing to be said respecting any serious proposition importantly to restrict immigration into the United States is, that such a proposition necessarily and properly encounters a high degree of incredulity, arising from the traditions of our country. From the beginning, it has been the policy of the United States, both officially and according to the prevailing sentiment of our people, to tolerate, to welcome, and to encourage immigration, without qualification, and without discrimination. For generations it was the settled opinion of our people, which found no challenge anywhere, that immigration was a source of both strength and wealth. Not only was it thought unnecessary carefully to scrutinize foreign arrivals at our ports, but the figures of any exceptionally large immigration were greeted with noisy gratulation. In those days the American people did not doubt that they derived a great advantage from this source. It is, therefore, natural to ask, Is it possible that our fathers