return to China. This was done by issuing a certificate at the port of departure, such certificate being the sole evidence of a right to return. Penalties for violating the law and provisions for the deportation of Chinese unlawfully landed were included. And, like the first act, this law denied to the state or United States courts the right to naturalize Chinese. THE CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAW OF 1884. In the next Congress there were several bills introduced amending the act of 1882. One of these, that of Mr. Henley, of California, was reported favorably by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The committee declared that This act, prepared by the combined Representatives of three States and two Territories, the portions of the United States now most affected by Chinese immigration, was presented for the sole purpose of perfecting the machinery of exclusion already in existence under the act of 1882. That act was intended by its originators to exclude Chinese laborers, but, they claimed, failed to do so and required revision to conform to the intent of its framers. To substantiate this view, they cited the case decided by Justices Lowell and Nelson of the United States circuit court in Massachusetts, where a Chinese laborer, born on the island of Hongkong after its cession to Great Britain, was held not to be within the provisions of the act. And to avoid a similar situation the act was extended to all Chinese, subjects of whatever country. To prevent evasions of the law through the " possible interpretations of words 'merchants' and 'travelers,' together with the notorious capabilities of the lower classes of Chinese for perjury," the certificates of the exempt classes were made more elaborate, and the word "merchant" was defined to exclude hucksters, peddlers, and fishermen. The certificates were made the only evidence admissible to establish a right to reenter. These certificates also had to be verified by the United States diplomatic officer at the port of departure. All attempts to make the bill less severe were futile, and it passed the House by a vote of 184 to 13, not voting 125. The Senate passed it by a vote of 43 to 12, not voting 21. It was approved July 5, 1884. The Pacific coast States, however, were not satisfied with these laws, and in spite of the treaty provisions providing for the protection and good treatment of all Chinese lawfully within the United States attacks were being continually made upon them in these States. The one at Rock Springs, Wyo., is most frequently referred to. For refusing to join in a strike some 28 Chinese miners were murdered, 15 wounded, and many others driven from their homes. President Cleveland in several messages to Congress recommended the appropriation of various amounts as indemnity for the sufferers. Later, in the proposed treaty of 1888, China claimed an indemnity of $276,619.75, because Chinese subjects being in remote and unsettled regions in the United States. have been the victims of injury in their persons and property at the hands of wicked and lawless men. @ H. R. 1798 (House Report 614), Forty-eighth Congress, first session. 66 CR. M. Smith, Emigration and immigration," p. 257. Coincident with these outbreaks there was a persistent demand for stricter exclusion laws, this demand being especially strong among organized labor. THE CHINESE TREATY OF 1888. In 1886 China of her own accord proposed to prohibit the emigration of her laborers to the United States, and also to prohibit the return of any laborers who had gone back to China. She asked that negotiations be entered into for a treaty embodying such provisions. Such a treaty was agreed to and signed by the representatives of the two countries on March 12, 1888. In the meanwhile, attempts at legislation had been given up. A bill passed by the Senate in 1886 perfecting the earlier laws in conformity to certain judicial decisions was forgotten during the negotiations for a new treaty. Some of the California newspapers could see little good in the treaty as it went to the Senate for ratification. Others, while thinking it did not go far enough, considered it better than nothing. The San Francisco Examiner in referring to it said, "We lose nothing in any respect by the treaty, and where any change is made we gain." Other sections of the country generally approved it. The treaty as signed provided that Chinese laborers should be excluded for twenty years. No Chinese laborer returning to China was to be allowed to reenter the United States unless he left a wife, child, or parent, or property to the value of $1,000. To avail himself of this right he had to return within a year. Chinese subjects other than laborers had to obtain certificates of identification from consular representatives of the United States at the port of departure. As in the earlier treaty, the Chinaman lawfully residing here was granted all the privileges of citizens of the most-favored nation. Finally, the indemnity fund of $276,619.75, which was asked for losses and injuries suffered by the Chinese in the United States, was included. Before ratifying it the Senate changed two articles of the treaty. By the first all Chinese laborers not then in the United States, but who held return certificates under existing laws, were not to be allowed. to enter. The other required the possession of the certificate of identification to insure entry. Thus changed, the treaty was returned to China for ratification. THE CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAW OF 1888. Expecting an immediate ratification, on July 15, 1888, Mr. Dolph, of the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported a bill to prohibit the coming of Chinese laborers according to the stipulations of the treaty just ratified. It was passed by the Senate on August 8, by the House on August 20, 1888, and was approved September 13, 1888. The last provision of this act was that it should not go into effect until the final ratification of the treaty, but by a decision of the Solicitor of the Treasury it was decided that sections 5 to 14, d S. bill No. 1991 (S. Rept. No. 835), 49th Cong., 1st sess. S. bill No. 3304, 50th Cong., 1st sess. Appendix E, p. 136 (25 Stat. L., p. 476). inclusive, of this act did not depend upon the ratification of the treaty of March 12, 1888, and therefore became operative immediately upon the passage of the act." This act took full advantage of the stipulation of the pending treaty. It provided for the exclusion for twenty years of all Chinese persons, except officials, teachers, students, merchants, and travelers for pleasure or curiosity. They were excepted only upon permission of the Chinese Government evidenced by a certificate. A Chinese laborer having a wife, child, parent, or property in the United States to the value of $1,000 had, for identification, to secure a certificate before leaving the United States, and unless he returned within one year such certificate became void. He must return to the port of departure. Ports of entry were also specifically named. Provisions for the deportation of Chinese found unlawfully living in the United States were included, and penalties were fixed for unlawfully landing or assisting in the landing of Chinese. The making of all rules and regulations for enforcing this act was vested in the Secretary of the Treasury. No ratification of this treaty followed, and after receipt of unofficial reports that China had rejected it, Congress became impatient. On September 3, 1888, Mr. Scott of Pennsylvania introduced a bill to amend the act of May 6, 1882. There was little delay, and on September 7 it passed the House and four days later the Senate. As passed it was declared not to conflict in any way with any treaty stipulations then existing between the United States and China. It merely proposes, under certain conditions, to prohibit Chinese laborers from coming to the United States. If the treaty recently negotiated has been rejected by the Chinese Government, then this bill is essential as the only possible way by which Chinese laborers can be kept out of the United States. The bill provided that it should be unlawful for any Chinese laborer who was, or might be, a resident of the United States to return to the United States after having once departed. All certificates of identity before provided for were declared void and of no effect in claiming admission. President Cleveland delayed approving this bill some time, waiting for a ratification of the treaty. Finally, receiving a refusal from China to ratify unless the term of years was made shorter and other conditions were changed, on October 1, 1888, he approved the bill. In his message accompanying the approval he justified his action, claiming China's delay was a breach of the existing treaty and such a breach as justified Congress in legislatively dealing with the matter. He recommended the payment of the indemnity provided by the terms of the treaty, and he also recommended that the act should not apply to Chinese already on their way. The indemnity was paid, but legislation making the exception to those on the way was not enacted. This bill received a share of condemnation from the press of the country, even though the policy of Chinese exclusion had some time since been generally accepted throughout the United States. The 4 S. Doc. No. 300, p. 23 (note), 57th Cong., 1st sess. H. R. 11336, 50th Cong., 1st sess. 25 Stat., p. 504, Appendix O. manner of this exclusion was not everywhere popular." The House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, sent to the Pacific coast to study the Chinese question under a House resolution of March 12, 1890, submitted their report on March 2, 1891. They reported that the number of Chinese in this country, in consequence of the acts of 1882 and 1884, was decreasing, though not as rapidly as the committee thought desirable on account of the difficulty encountered by the officials in executing the law. It was stated that a considerable number unlawfully entered across the Canadian and Mexican borders. As usual, the universal sentiment was that the Chinese should be excluded, but without interfering with the rights of those already here. Finally, the committee said: Your committee, in view of the fact that the present so-called exclusion act will be in force until May 6, 1892, or, as it is claimed by some, until July 5, 1894, deem it necessary to report at the present time a bill making permanent the exclusion of Chinese labor, which your committee is satisfied should be done. The matter can be safely left to be dealt with by the next Congress. We are of the opinion that a reenactment of the present law, making the exclusion of coolies permanent, and a vigorous enforcement of that law and the proper facilities given the officials to bring about such enforcement, is all that is necessary in the premises. CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAW OF 1892. On December 10, 1891, Senator Dolph, of Oregon, introduced a bill providing that the act of May 6, 1882, should be continued in force for another 10 years. This bill was passed by the Senate on February 19, 1892. Representative Geary, of California, reported a bill absolutely prohibiting the coming of Chinese persons, except diplomatists, to the United States. All Chinese in the United States were to be obliged to take out certificates, so that the authorities could know their whereabouts. Failure to procure this certificate meant deportation. The Senate bill of Mr. Dolph was not favored in the House, and the more stringent Geary bill was passed on April 4, 1892. When it went to the Senate, the Dolph bill was substituted and a conference asked for. The report of the conference committee was finally adopted and the bill as passed was approved the day before the expiration of the existing law.e The bill, as approved, contained part of the provisions of the Senate bill and part of those of the House bill. All existing laws were continued in force for ten years. All Chinese laborers within the United States must secure certificates within one year, and if any was found without such certificate he was to be liable to deportation, unless he could prove by one credible white witness that he was a resident of the country at the time of the passage of the act and was unable because of sickness or other unavoidable cause to obtain such certificate before. Any Chinese person found to be unlawfully within the United States was liable to imprisonment at hard labor for a period of not more than a year and then deported. This pro "Public Opinion, vol. 16, 1888, September and October. House Report 4048, 51st Cong., 2d sess. CS. 540, 52d Cong., 1st sess. d H. R. 6185, 52d Cong., 1st sess. e 27 Stat. L., p. 25, Appendix G. vision, however, was held to be unconstitutional in Wong Wing v. United States (163 U. S., 228). Upon the passage of this act certain Chinese persons employed three prominent attorneys of New York-Messrs. Chase, Carter, and Ashton--to render an opinion upon the constitutionality of the law as a whole. Each of them declared it unconstitutional, but on May 15, 1893, the Supreme Court declared it constitutional. Having relied upon the opinions of their attorneys, the Chinese did not register. When the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered the year provided by the statute for certification was ended, and there were some 90,000 unregistered Chinamen in the country, all liable to deportation. After considering the matter and seeing that it would cost more than $6,000,000 to deport them, Congress decided it would be more just and economical to extend the period for obtaining certificates for another six months. Such a bill was passed-known as the McCreary amendment-and was approved on November 3, 1893. Besides extending the period of registration for six months, the section of the act of 1892 providing that "one credible white witness" was necessary to prove a Chinaman a resident of the United States was changed to "one credible witness other than Chinese." The words "laborers" and "merchants " were defined. It was further provided that photographs must accompany all 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, parent, or property worth $1,000 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, was repealed. This was the act refusing to Chinese laborers the right to return to the United States after departure therefrom. By the act of July 7, 1898, following the annexation of Hawaii, Chinese immigration to those islands was declared to be regulated by the laws of the United States. By the act of April 30, 1900, provision was made for the registering of all Chinese persons in the Hawaiian Islands, and Chinese living there were forbidden to enter the United States. By the act of June 6, 1900, the Commissioner General of Immigration was given charge of the administration of the Chinese-exclusion law in addition to his other duties. 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. In the national party conventions of a 28 Stat., p. 1210, Appendix E, Pt. IV. |