This act was soon passed and was approved on February 19, 1862. On February 9, 1869, the provisions of this act were extended to the Japanese and all Orientals, and by section 5 of the last law the provisions of the passenger acts of 1847 and 1849 were extended to all American vessels carrying passengers from foreign ports to other foreign ports. The act of 1862 has been referred to as the first exercise of the power of Congress to regulate immigration, but all the debates in Congress and reports on the subject show that the question of the importation of these coolies into the United States was never considered. The only purpose of the act was to prevent American vessels from carrying on this coolie or slave trade, especially between China and the West Indies, although, to some extent, it was also carried on with South American ports. THE BURLINGAME TREATY. Although political relations of the United States with China date back to the year 1844, the first treaty in which the emigration of the inhabitants from one country to the other was considered was the Burlingame treaty, proclaimed July 28, 1868. Sections 5 and 6 of the treaty state the position the United States was supposed to hold in regard to the Chinese in this country. The inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects, respectively, from the one country to the other, for the purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents, were recognized and "any other than an entirely voluntary emigration" was reprobated. But the United States went further and declared that Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nations." The right of naturalization was, however, denied them. Though these declarations may have met with general favor in the country as a whole they were unpopular in the Pacific States, and these States continued their efforts to get legislation restricting the further immigration of the Chinese. On December 22, 1869, occurred one of the very first attempts to secure national legislation in regard to Chinese immigration. But the bill then introduced provided merely that no Chinaman under contract to labor in the United States should be admitted. It contained an express provision for the continuance of free and voluntary immigration. This bill did not pass. Previously, on December 6, 1869, President Grant, in his message to Congress, advised such legislation as will forever preclude the enslavement of the Chinese upon our soil under the name of coolies, and also prevent American vessels from engaging in the transportation of coolies to any country tolerating the system. Again, on December 7, 1874, he advised similar legislation, and, as explained previously, a law embodying his recommendation was approved March 3, 1875.c @ U. S. Stat. L., vol. 16, p. 740. Besides prohibiting the importation of women, especially Chinese women, for the purpose of prostitution, and the emigration of convicts, the principal provision of the act was that the transporting into the United States of any subject of China, Japan, or any oriental country, without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service, was to be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year and by a fine not exceeding $2,000. It further provided that any person attempting to contract in this manner to supply coolie labor to another should be guilty of a felony and imprisoned for not more than one year and pay a fine of not more than $5,000. In 1872 the legislature of California had instructed their Representatives in Congress to urge the making of a new treaty with China looking to an exclusion of certain Chinese subjects. As a result of this action and the work of the delegation sent from San Francisco, the above bill was passed, which to the East seemed all that was really necessary in the way of legislation. But the Pacific States were not satisfied and they continued their efforts until Congress finally appointed a joint special commission to go to the Pacific coast to investigate the character, extent, and effect of Chinese immigration. This committee was appointed in July, 1876. In the party conventions of 1876 the Republicans declared it to beThe immediate duty of Congress to fully investigate the effect of the immigration and importation of Mongolians upon the moral and material interests of the country. The Democrats went further and demanded Such modification of the treaty with the Chinese Empire, or such legislation within constitutional limitations, as shall prevent further importation or immigration of the Mongolian race. CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY OF 1876-77. a On February 27, 1877, the report of the joint special committee sent to California to study the question was submitted to Congress. The committee as appointed consisted of Messrs. Morton, of Indiana; Meade, of New York; Wilson, of Massachusetts; Cooper, of New York; Sargent and Piper, of California. Because of sickness and resignations, the final report was made by Mr. Cooper, Mr. Sargent, and Mr. Piper. The report is principally interesting as showing the sentiment of that State toward the Chinese and was entirely unfavorable to them. It was claimed that the Chinese had no desire for progress; that they were filthy in their habits; that in point of morals they were inferior to any European race; that they were cruel to their sick, often putting them out into the street to die; and, finally, that they did not and never could assimilate with the whites. While admitting that these views were challenged by a considerable and respectable class in California, among whom the majority were capitalists and religious teachers, the committee declared that public opinion generally supported them. This was especially true of the laboring classes, whose chief grievance against Chinese was that "they could work for wages that would not furnish the barest necessities of life to an American." The final recommendation of the committee was Senate Report No. 689, 44th Cong., 2d sess. That measures be taken by the Executive looking toward a modification of the existing treaty with China, confining it to strictly commercial purposes, and that Congress legislate to restrain the great influx of Asiatics to this country. It is not believed that either of these measures would be looked upon with disfavor by the Chinese Government. Whether this is so or not, a duty is owing to the Pacific States and Territories, which are suffering under a terrible scourge, but are patiently waiting for relief from Congress. Whatever may be thought of this report it showed conclusively the way in which the Chinese were regarded on the Pacific coast. It was this violent denunciation of the Chinese as a class on the part of the Pacific coast that finally led to the passage of the Chinese-exclusion laws. Though Congress took no immediate action on this report, from that time on protests and bills looking to the exclusion of Chinese were constantly being introduced and considered in Congress. Also, attempts were made to keep down Chinese immigration by means of a high head tax, one bill in 1878 placing it at $250, while evasion was punished by a penalty of five years of hard labor in the State prison. None of these bills got beyond the committee to which they were referred. Following the appeals of the California legislature in 1877 and 1878, on June 17, 1878, the House concurred in the following resolution as a substitute for one previously presented to the Senate by Senator Sargent: That the provisions of the existing treaty between the Empire of China and the United States allowing the unrestricted emigration to this country from China might wisely be modified so as to subserve the best interests of both Governments, and the attention of the Executive is respectfully invited to the subject. This resolution was reported February 25, 1878, by Mr. Willis, of Kentucky, from the Committee on Education and Labor. The accompanying report declared that the Chinese are Impregnable against all influence (and that) they remain a quiet, united class, distinct from us in color, size, in features, in dress, in language, in customs, in habits, and in social peculiarities. A nation to be strong should be homogeneous. All the elements that attach themselves to its society should be assimilated rapidly into one harmonious and congruous whole. It is neither possible nor desirable for two distinct races to live harmoniously in the same society and under the same government. If this single proposition be true, the conclusion is sound that Chinese immigration should be restricted or prohibited. It was urged, moreover— That with (his) blundering or erroneous perceptions, groveling thoughts, gross passions, and degrading habits, the Chinaman in America can not be considered a desirable member of society, either from a physical or moral standpoint. During 1879 the Pacific coast Members of Congress continued with the same energy to fight for exclusion legislation. And the memorials from California and the other coast States were as urgent and insistent as ever. In that year their efforts saw the first sign of fruition. Why it came at that time is hard to say. R. Mayo Smith says it was simply a question of " practical politics." But no doubt the continuous demand of the Pacific States forced Congress to take action. There was then first heard from the East the argument that House Report No. 240, 45th Cong., 2d sess. 66 Emigration and immigration," p. 252. since these Western States were so unanimous in their claim their word ought to be taken as final in regard to the danger of such immigration. a A bill limiting the number of Chinese who would come into the United States upon any one vessel to 15 was introduced by Mr. Wren, of Nevada. It was in charge of Mr. Willis, of Kentucky, chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor. The arguments against the bill were that it would abrogate the provisions of the Burlingame treaty. While this was the principal opposing argument, claims that the Chinaman was not so harmful as asserted were heard. Those favoring the bill, as shown by the committee report, relied on the old argument of the Chinaman's "sordid, selfish, immoral, nonassimilating habits," while as for waiting for a modification of the treaty, they said they had been waiting for this since 1869, and instead of waiting longer they recommended immediate legislative action. After being amended by adding a provision for the special abrogation of articles 5 and 6 of the Burlingame treaty, which gave to the Chinaman all privileges enjoyed by "citizens or subjects of the most favored nations," this bill passed the House January 28, 1879, by a vote of 155 to 72, not voting, 61. On February 15, 1879, it passed the Senate by a small majority. On March 1, 1879, President Hayes returned it with his veto," declaring that history gave no other instance where a treaty had been abrogated by Congress, and that it was not competent to modify a treaty by cutting out certain sections. And even if it were constitutional, seeing that China would probably assent willingly to such a modification, he thought it the better policy to wait for the proper course of diplomatic negotiations. THE CHINESE TREATY OF 1880. Congress failed to pass the bill over the veto. Accordingly negotiations were almost immediately begun for the modification of the treaty. On November 17, 1880. a treaty somewhat as desired by the Pacific coast was concluded. It was proclaimed October 5, 1881. The article relating to the limitation and the suspension of Chinese immigration into the United States reads as follows: Whenever, in the opinion of the Government of the United States, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect the interest of that country, or to endanger the good order of said country or of any locality within the territory thereof, the Government of China agrees that the Government of the United States may regulate, limit, or suspend such coming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation of suspension shall be reasonable, and shall apply only to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes not being included in the limitations. Legislation taken in regard to Chinese laborers will be of such a character only as is necessary to enforce the regulation, limitation, or suspension of immigration, and immigrants shall not be subject to personal maltreatment or abuse. How general anti-Chinese sentiment was on the Pacific coast is shown by the votes of California and Nevada when the question was a H. R. 2423 (H. Rept. No. 62), 45th Cong., 3d sess. Appendix E, p. 131 (22 Stat. L., p. 826). submitted to the people in 1880. In California 154,638 voted against and only 883 voted for Chinese immigration. In Nevada, out of a total vote of 18,397, only 183 were in favor of, while 17,259 were against such immigration. THE CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAW OF 1882. After the treaty of 1880 was concluded on December 5, 1881, Senator Miller introduced a bill to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to the Chinese. It passed the Senate on March 9, 1882, by a vote of 29 to 15, not voting 32. On March 23 it passed the House by a vote of 167 to 66, not voting 59. As this bill went to the President for approval it provided that within ninety days after its passage and until twenty years thereafter the coming of Chinese laborers should be suspended. Exception was made to Chinese laborers who were in the United States on November 17, 1880, and those who should come before the act went into effect. Also a complete system of registration, certification, and identification was provided. By the last two sections skilled Chinese laborers were specifically included among the excluded. All state or United States courts were denied the right to admit Chinese to citizenship. On April 4, 1882, President Arthur returned the bill with his veto. His principal reason for refusing to sign it was that the passage of an act prohibiting immigration for twenty years was an unreasonable suspension of immigration and so a breach of the treaty. The features relating to registration he also claimed served no good purpose. And finally, while deeply convinced of the necessity of some legislation on this subject, he thought it 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 Senate failed to pass the bill over the veto by a vote of 29 to 21, not voting 26. Within a few weeks four more bills providing for shorter periods of exclusion were introduced. On April 12, 1882, Mr. Page, of California, from the Committee on Education and Labor, reported a bill as a substitute to his bill previously referred to the committee, and on April 17, 1882, it passed the House by a vote of 201 to 37. On April 28, with some amendments, it passed the Senate by a vote of 42 to 25. Though still containing some of the provisions objectionable to the President, he signed it on May 6, 1882. The law of 1882, as amended by act of July 5, 1884, is printed elsewhere." The law of 1882 provided that all immigration of Chinese laborers, skilled or unskilled, should be suspended for a period of ten years. Provision was also made for the exception of Chinese laborers who were in the United States on November 17, 1880, or who should come within ninety days after the passage of the bill. Right of reentry was given to those lawfully in the United States and who should a S. 71, Forty-seventh Congress, first session. Ex. Doc. No. 148, Forty seventh Congress, first session. |