Pavn 
 
 Ch\v\ou JTt^c 
 
 IiatArn’ I 
 ireloutions 
 
 RELATIONS WITH CHINA. 
 
 SPEE O H 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 NOVEMBER 3, 1893, 
 
 BY 
 
 Hon, Cushman K. Davis, 
 
 OF MINNESOTA, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 CHINESE EXCLUSION LEGISLATION. 
 
 ■WASHING-XOIT. 
 
 1893. 
 
7ty) 
 
 t 
 
 ) / i iC*-- 
 
 - ‘s 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 or 
 
 HON. CUSHMAN K. DAVIS. 
 
 The Senate, as In Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of 
 the bill (H. R. 3687) to amend an act entitled “An act to prohibit the coming 
 of Chinese persons into the United States,” approved May 5, 1892, the pend- 
 ing question being on the amendment of Mr. Squibb — 
 
 Mr. DAVIS said: 
 
 Mr. President: I submitted yesterday an amendment to the 
 pending bill. With a desire to perfect the amendment I send 
 to the d^esk a supplement to that amendment, which I ask to have 
 read. 
 
 The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read as re- 
 quested. 
 
 The Secretary. Add to the amendment of Mr. Davis: 
 
 That that certain act entitled “An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act to 
 ■execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese, approved May 6, 
 1883,”’ approved July 5, 1884, be, and the same is hereby, reenacted, and that 
 such act thus reenacted shall continue in force until the expiration of ten 
 years after the passage of this act. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, it is certainly unfortunate for 
 every interest involved in the pending bill that its final consider- 
 ation or even its discussion should be pressed at the present time. 
 It is perfectly manifest that full discussion can not now be had 
 upon it. It is very doubtful whether it can be passed in the pres- 
 ent state of the attendance of the Senate. It is a momentous and 
 far-reaching measure, one which has appealed to the conscience 
 of the country and excited everywhere a great deal of comment. 
 
 We have just passed through a long and strenuous debate 
 upon one single subject. We have enacted the most important 
 financial legislation that Congress has ever jiassed. The public 
 mmd and the minds of Senators have been strained under the 
 tension of this extraordinary session. Both sides of the gold 
 and silver shield have been repeatedly struck by champions here 
 and elsewhere, and the country has resounded with the clangor. 
 We are approaching the end of the session. The time of ad- 
 journment is fixed, and I repeat, that to bring forward a meas- 
 ure of this importance, involving public duty and personal right 
 to the extent that it does, is most unfortunate, because it can 
 not result in adequate debate or full deliberation. 
 
 Mr. President, our relations with the Empire of China have 
 for many years been of the most perplexing character. The 
 treaty commonly known as the Burlingame treaty, negotiated 
 in IStiS, was concluded at a time in our history when the Ameri- > 
 can people had the most effusive ideas in regard to the equality 
 of individuals and the parity of the personal elements of which 
 nations are composed. We were then going through the experi- 
 ment of adopting the constitutional amendments whereby we in- 
 700 3 
 
4 
 
 troduced as an operative factor into our body politic a race ge- 
 nerically different f i om our own; and we are now endeavoring tO’ 
 adjust that experiment to existing and permanent conditions. 
 
 The Burlingame treaty was considered to he a great act of 
 diplomacy. It was thought that it would be followed by conse- 
 quences of wide philanthropy and universal brotherhood. Its 
 immediate results were, no doubt, most beneficial to the Pacific 
 States. A new influx of laborers poured the efforts of their in- 
 dustry into every situation demanding employment. They built 
 the Central Pacific Railroad. They opened in California its 
 fields of wheat, its orchards and vineyards. But time went on 
 rnd it was discovered (and nobody I know of entirely dissents 
 from this view) that probably the whole experiment was of an un- 
 desirable and doubtful character. 
 
 Mr. President, I do not wish to be for a moment misappre- 
 hended in regard to my own position , if that is of any importance 
 to anybody but myself. I am as much opposed as my friend from 
 California [Mr. Perkins] to the immigration of Chinese labor- 
 ers. 1 do not want to see this element grow in our country. I 
 wish to see it steadily diminished in efficacy and in numbers un- 
 til it shall cease to exist. But what I object to, and concerning 
 which I have the clearest convictions of my duty, is the manner 
 in which it is proposed to depopulate the country of those peo- 
 ple. 
 
 As I have said, the Burlingame treaty became unsatisfactory; 
 and it was proposed about the year 1880% this Government that 
 the vast and generous terms of that convention, by which Chi- 
 nese were permitted to come to this country ad libitum, should 
 be modified by treaty stipulations of a new and restricted char- 
 acter. Accordingly the treaty of 1880 was concluded between the 
 two governments, which in substance provided (I shall not at- 
 tempt to state statutes or treaties literally) that whenever in the 
 opinion of the United States injurious effects are threatened or 
 caused by the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or 
 their residence therein, such coming or residence may be regu- 
 lated, limited, or suspended, but not absolutely prohibited; that 
 the limitation or suspension shall be reasonable and shall apply 
 only to laborers, and immigrants shall not be subject to personal 
 maltreatment or abuse. That is the essence of that treaty so far 
 as the immigration of laborers i^ concerned. 
 
 Within four years after its ratification, and in the due course 
 of legislation two acts of Congress were passed, the act of 1882 
 and the act of 1884, designed to carry into effect the stipulation 
 of the convention to which I have just alluded. Without going 
 into that legislation with any degree of particularity (for, as 
 I have said, it is not my purpose to do so at any stage of this 
 discussion) it must be sufficient to say that those statutes, by an 
 elaborate system of registration and certificates, plainly suffi- 
 cient, I think, and certainly sufficient when supplemented by 
 such regulations as the Treasury Department had full authority 
 to make, were adequate to carry out the treaty stipulations and 
 to prevent the evil which was to be apprehended. 
 
 But that, Mr. President, was not deemed sufficient. Other 
 treaty stipulations were demanded on the part of our Government. 
 Accordingly in the year 1888 another convention still more re.- 
 strictive in its character in the particulars upon which I am 
 talking was concluded between the Empire of China and the; 
 United States. In anticipation of the ratification of that treaty 
 700 
 
5 
 
 the act of September 13, 1888, was passed by Congress, concern- 
 ing which it is sullicient to say that substantially the terms of 
 that treaty were written into the act for the purpose of making 
 it efficacious and operative. But while this was being done we 
 were on the eve of another Presidential election, and that con- 
 scienceless party spirit, concerning which neither the Demo- 
 cratic nor the Republican party has any particular right to re- 
 proach the other, was put at work to bid for political support in 
 the Pacific States. 
 
 Accordingly, early in October, 1888, what is comnaonly known 
 as the Scott hill was passed, by which, in abrogation of the terms 
 of the treaty of 1880, the right of the Chinese to come into this 
 country was very much limited, and certificates, some twenty 
 thousand in number, I have been told, which were outstanding 
 under the operations of the treaty of 1880 and the act of 1882 
 and the act of 1884, held by thousands of people who had gone 
 to China under the sanctity of that legislation and that treaty, 
 were absolutely canceled and nullified. The Senate Committee 
 on Foreign Relations wrote the words of the Scott act into the 
 treaty when it had it under consideration, and added to the 
 treaty which had been negotiated these stringent and violative 
 piovisions, and in that shape it was advised and consented to 
 by the Senate. Those modifications were telegraphed to China, 
 where the convention was being considered; the treaty broke 
 down, and it never has been heard of since. 
 
 Mr. DOLPH. Will the Senator allow me to make a sugges- 
 tion? I do not think the amendments made by the Senate in the 
 treaty of 1888 were at all material or that China ever signified 
 that they would not be satisfactory to the Chinese Government. 
 They were satisfactory to the Chinese minister here as a matter 
 of fact. I do not understand that the treaty of 1888 was ever re- 
 jected by the Chinese Government. It had not been acted upon 
 at the time the Scott act was passed, and of course it would not 
 he acted upon after the passage of that act. The act of Septem- 
 ber 13, 1888, was to take effect only when the Chinese Govern- 
 ment ratified the treaty of 1888, but before the Chinese Govern- 
 ment had acted upon it, or our Government was notified that 
 they had rejected or disapproved or refused to ratify the treaty, 
 the Scott act approved October 1, 1888, was passed, and of course 
 after that the treaty fell; but I think it failed on account of the 
 Scott act, and not on account of any obnoxious provisions added 
 to the treaty of 1888. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I think I speak advisedly upon 
 this subject. A large part of the information from which I have 
 spoken as to the fate of the negotiations of 1888 was derived from 
 some remarks made by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan] , 
 now chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in 1892, 
 in this body, when the act of 1892 was under consideration. 
 
 In that state of things, another Presidential canvass super- 
 vening, the act of 1892 was passed, of which, or of some portions 
 of which, the pending measure is an amendment. Now, dis- 
 tinctly stating my position in this matter, it is this, and such 
 are the object and scopd of the amendments I have sent to the 
 desk: I am in favor of carrying out the provisions of the treaty 
 of 1880. 1 wish to restore to operation the act of 1884, amend- 
 
 atory of the act of 1882, and I am opposed, U2Don what I con- 
 ceive to be the highest considei-ations, to any of the legislation 
 which has been enacted since that time and which is now oper- 
 700 
 
6 
 
 ative. I am especially opposed to the act of 1892, the amendment 
 to which is now before us for consideration, and it is that act 
 and its practical operations to which I intend to direct the 
 greater portion of my remarks. 
 
 Up to a certain time, namely, up to the time when the obnox- 
 ious legislation to which I have alluded became operative, the 
 policy of this country through its statutes in the execution of 
 the treaty was to regulate, control, and prevent the coming into 
 this country of those Chinese who were not entitled to come; but, 
 in abrogation of the treaty, in amendment and repeal of those 
 statutes enacted to carry it out, that purpose has been enlarged 
 so that, say what you may of the devices and pretexts and glosses 
 to which this legislation has been subjected, the actual object is 
 to drive from this country by a system of legislation, which is 
 the scandal and disgrace of our time, those who came here by 
 our invitation, and whose right to remain here is guarantied not 
 only by treaty obligations, but by statutes efficacious and in force 
 up to a recent time. 
 
 The act of 1892, the most stringent aud the most advanced 
 legislation to that end. and which I shall analyze at some length 
 hereafter, with all of its prohibitory and severe provisions, its 
 processes without law, its total disregard of personal security, 
 liberty, or right, has been declared to be constitutional by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States. Against that decision I 
 have no argument to make. It is the declared and established 
 law. I shall not be led to discuss its soundness, for no discussion 
 here can impair its validity. It is declarative of the powers of 
 this Government in a field in which it has not trodden for nearly 
 one hundred years. I may be permitted to say that the decision 
 of the court took the great majority of the profession of this 
 country, so far as I can learn, by surprise. 
 
 But, 'Mr. President, the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States simply declares the law and the limitations of the 
 Constitution. It says what may or may not be done. That tri- 
 bunal outlines no policy, and its conclusion upon the validity of 
 a statute is not even a monition to Congress as to the proper 
 method of exercising its political and administrative powers 
 within their unquestioned limits. That court has decided that 
 there resides in the other departments of the Government a 
 power vast, ill defined, susceptible of abuse, liable to be per- 
 verted to purposes of passion. For that very reason I call for a 
 revision of the statutes by which that political and administra- 
 tive power has been put into operation. 
 
 The Supreme Court of the United States in substance has de- 
 cided that, so far as the Chinese in this country are concerned, 
 the question of their disposition, rem lining here, deportation, 
 exile, banishment, punishment, whatever you may call it, is en- 
 tirely and exclusively a matter of political administration; that 
 no sanction of personal right — such personal rights as are enjoyed 
 by us — can be invoked by them in the courts for their protection. 
 
 Formerly there was a vague and general idea concerning the 
 execution of this law, that somewhere, somehow, by certiorari, 
 writ of error, habeas corpus, or in some way, rights abused, or 
 rights misused, or wrongs perpetrated, could be rectified by the 
 courts in proceedings under this statute. But that is not to be. 
 Hence, since the judiciary has closed its doors to this class of 
 people, especially to those who have been invited to come here 
 and are in this country under the charter and letters-patent of 
 700 
 
7 
 
 a treaty of ttie United States with their Government, if we wish 
 to get rid of them by administrative and executive procedure 
 we should do it by methods warranted by humanity, and the 
 more so because the power which has been vested in the poMti- 
 cal department of this Government is so irresponsible and un- 
 controllable. 
 
 I wish to call attention to the provisions of the act of May 5, 
 1892, and of the amendment now pending to that act for the pur- 
 pose of emphasizing in a more particular way the objections 
 which I think are valid against the expediency of this legisla- 
 lation. My objections, in my opinion, are stronger for the sim- 
 ple reason that the political powers granted by the statute have 
 been decided to be absolutely uncontrollable by the judiciary, 
 and are vested entirely in the unregulated discretion of the ex- 
 ecutive officers of the Government. Take the second section of 
 the act of 1892: 
 
 That any Chinese person or person of Chinese descent, when convicted 
 and adjudged under any of said laws to be not lawfully entitled to be or re- 
 main in the United States, shall be removed from the United States to 
 China — 
 
 “ When convicted or adjudged.” Note the judicial phraseol- 
 ogy as to matters which have been held not to be judicial — 
 
 unless he or they shall make it appear to the justice, judge, or commis- 
 sioner before whom he or they are tried that he or they are subjects or citi- 
 zens of some other country, in which case he or they shall be removed from 
 the United States to such country. 
 
 Here is a man brought before a judge, magistrate, or commis- 
 sioner. He is charged with the offense of being unlawfully in 
 this country. Every presumption with which the common law 
 surrounds an accused person, that he is innocent until he is proven 
 guilty, is studiously by statute taken away. He must make it 
 appear to the magistrate that he is a citizen of another country, 
 in which case he shall be deported to that country. Then notice 
 what follows: 
 
 Provided, That in any case where such other country of which such Chi- 
 nese person shall claim to be a citizen or subject shail demand any tax as a 
 condition of the removal of such person to that country, he or she shall be 
 removed to China. 
 
 Now, I have to say generally in respect to that proviso that we 
 have undertaken to deport Chinese to other countries than 
 China, with which we have treaty stipulations, giving to their 
 citizens the right to come and go and live here upon the same 
 terms that we have given the most favored nation. In case a 
 Chinese happens to be a citizen of another country than China, 
 we have undertaken to deport him to that country of which he 
 may claim and prove himself to be a citizen. In the anxiety to 
 get rid of these people the framers of the legislation of 1892, 
 while they repudiated our treaty obligations with China, were 
 not careful of our obligatious to other countries. Absolute is 
 the provision that when the Chinese is convicted and adjudged 
 to be unlawfully here, when by treaty with Great Britain he 
 had a right to be here, if he was a subject of that country, he 
 shall be deported to Great Britain, or such other country of which 
 he may be a sub ject, raising at once questions between us and 
 other nations with whom we have no interest or desire to be en- 
 tangled in any such controversy. 
 
 But the proviso adds an iniquity to that to which I have just 
 called the attention of the Senate. It provides in substance that 
 if the other country of which the Chinese has established him- 
 700 
 
8 
 
 self to be a citizen lays any tax or head money upon him, he shall 
 be deported — wherey Not to the country to which he owes alle- 
 giance, but he shall be deported to China, a realm which he has 
 abjured; that he shall be banished to the country from which he 
 originally came. What will be the effect? Great Britain acquired 
 Hongkong in 1841. It is an island off the coast of China, and 
 contains about 25 square miles. It has about 220,000 people. 
 Every Chinese born in Hongkong since the acquisition of that 
 island by the British Government is a subject of Great Britain, 
 and it is said (I know not with how much accuracy, though to a 
 certain degree it must be true) that a large part of the Chinese 
 immigration to the United States has come from Hongkong, so 
 that in this respect we deal, or propose to deal, not only with 
 the Empire of China, but with Great Britain or other countries 
 with whom Chinese may have, and doubtless have, assumed the 
 relations of citizenship. 
 
 Passing on to section 3: 
 
 That any Chinese person or person of Chinese descent arrested under the 
 provision of this act or the acts hereby extended shall he adjudged — 
 
 Note the judicial phraseology — 
 to be unlawfully within the United States unless such person shall establish, 
 by affirmative proof, to the satisfaction of such justice, judge, or commis- 
 sioner, his lawful right to remain in the United States. 
 
 Now, that measure of proof applies not only to deportation pro- 
 ceedings but to criminal proceedings, strictly defined to be such 
 in the body of the act, whereby sentence is to follow judicial 
 proceedings. Whoever heard, whoever saw, in any other legis- 
 lation than this, that a man accused of that which is in substance 
 a crime, of which he must be convicted by some process or other, 
 shall be adjudged guilty unless he shall affirmatively prove by a 
 preponderance of testimony sufficient to remove the legal pi e- 
 sumption of guilt, that he is an innocent man? There is nosuch 
 law elsewhere in Christendom, and it would disgrace Morocco. 
 
 Sec. 4. That any such Chinese person or person of Chinese descent con- 
 victed and adjudged to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain inrhe United 
 States shall be imprisoned at hard labor for a period of not exceeding one 
 year and thereafter removed from the United States, as hereinbefore pro- 
 vided. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. The Senator is aware, I presume, 
 that that section has been declared invalid. That section has 
 been eliminated from the act. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I am carrying out my argument to show the 
 animus of this legislation. The animus with which the act was 
 drawn was that under section 3, when a Chinese person was ac- 
 cused he must prove his innocence, and if he did not prove it he 
 should be imprisoned for one year at hard labor and afterwards 
 be deported to the place from whence he came. 
 
 Mr. DOLPH. Imprisoned not exceeding one year. He might 
 not be imprisoned for an hour. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Not exceeding one year. Section 5 provides: 
 
 That after the passage of this act. on an application to any judge or court 
 of the United States in the first Instance for a writ of habeas corpus, by a 
 Chinese person seeking to land in the United States, to whom that privilege 
 has been denied, no bail shall be allowed, and such application shall be heard 
 and determined promptly without unnecessary delay.' 
 
 Mr. President, we have all been brought up to consider, 
 whether as to ourselves to the manner born, or as to aliens or 
 denizens, that the great shield of the writ of habeas corpus was 
 always over all. So dear is personal liberty in our political con- 
 700 
 
9 
 
 •ceptions that the distinction of the rig-ht to that writ had never 
 been drawn as against an alien prior to this legislation. Here 
 he is seized, arrested, detained. 
 
 Mr. DOLPH. No; that is while still aboard ship. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. While still aboard ship, but he is detained there: 
 he can not get off; he is restrained of the liberty of his person; 
 he can not have the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, even to 
 enable him to go ashore and prepare for his defense. But what 
 is the use of particularizing and stigmatizing in detail a depri- 
 vation by a statute of rights so comprehensive and disgraceful 
 as this is? 
 
 1 now come to an examination of section 6, and the proposed 
 amendment under present consideration, which mainly is con- 
 cerned with the substantial leeiiactment (with some few imma- 
 terial variations) of section 6 of the act of 1892. Bear in mind 
 that the treaty of ISSO had provided that certain laborers who 
 were here at a certain time should be permitted to remain in 
 this country; that its whole scope, and all that was asked then, 
 was to restrict the further in (lux of immigrants of that character. 
 Bearing all that in mind, let us consider the provision of the 
 proposed amendment. It is nearly identical with section 6 in 
 the statute of 1892: 
 
 Sec. 6. And it shall be the duty of all Chinese laborers within thellmits of 
 the United States, at the time of the passage of this act, and who were en- 
 titled to remain in the United States 
 
 Mr. PLATT. Who are entitled to remain? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. “Who were entitled to remain in the United 
 States ” before the passage of the act to which this is an amend- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. PLATT. Who does the Senator understand were entitled 
 to remain? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That enters into a branch of detail I do not care 
 to be questioned about just now, but I merely ask the attention 
 of the Senate to the general fact that unblushingly and avowedly 
 the act proposes to proceed against people who up to a certain 
 time were entitled to remain within this country. It shall be 
 the duty of such Chinese laborers “ to apply to the collector of 
 internal revenue of their respective districts, within six months 
 after the passage of this act, for a certificate of residence.” 
 
 His duty is to apply to the collector. I pause to remark, in 
 criticism of that particular provision, that nowhere within the 
 compass of this amendment, or of any legislation of which it is 
 amendatory, is it made the duty of the collector to give the 
 Chinese person a certificate. At the very beginning of this pro-' 
 ceeding an inferior executive officer of the United -States is to 
 be applied to. His discretion merely is to be applied to. His 
 judgment is final. There is no appeal in case of his refusal to 
 grant a certificate, however the Chinese may be prepared to 
 show clearly his right to be here: and with the state of feeling 
 in those parts of the country which assert themselves to be most 
 deeply affected and injured by the presence of this population, 1 
 ask, taking into account the average performances of human na- 
 ture, what kind of a show the Chinese is going to have with 
 the collector to whom he applies? Suppose he does apply. “I 
 will not grant your certificate.” Then he passes, abandoning all 
 hope, under all of the penal provisions of the law, and can not 
 possibly reinstate himself. 
 
 Mr. GRAY. I ask the Senator from Minnesota, if he will per- 
 7l0 
 
10 
 
 mitme, whether, notwithstanding the looseness of the framings 
 of the original Geary act, so-called, he does not think that there 
 is an implication of duty arising from the structure of the section 
 upon the co’ lector to give the certificate when it is applied for? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. It is enough for my purpose to say that I do not 
 believe such ii discrjtion ought to be confided to the collector. 
 
 Mr. GRAY. I do not think so either. I only ask the Senator 
 if he does not think there is an implication of duty. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Certainly my esteemed friend thinks so; but 
 what I am talking about is the logic il consequence. Supposing 
 the implied duty of which the Se.nator speaks and which may 
 exist here is not performed, where is the remedy for the Chi- 
 nese, however clear his claim may be? 
 
 Mr. GRAY. There is a remedy of mandamus, I should think, 
 where there is a duty implied. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I am talking about the practical working of this 
 business. Mandamus can not control or overrule the exercise 
 of discretionary power by any public officer. I am trying to 
 convince the Senate that this is a matter which ought not to be 
 precipitately or inconsiderately decided; and that this whole 
 question ought to be again referred to the Committee on For- 
 eign Relations with a view that some legislation adequate to 
 the subject, and at the same time just, can be formulated — 
 
 and any Chinese laborer, within the limits of the United State.s, who shall 
 neglect, fail, or refuse to comply with the provisions of this act and the act 
 to which this is an amendment, or who, after the expiration of said six 
 month-;, shall be found within the jurisdiction of the United States without 
 such certificate of residence, shall be deemed and adjudged — 
 
 Note the judicial and forensic language again — 
 
 to be unlawfully within the United States, and may be arrested by any 
 United States customs oBficial— 
 
 Whoever he may be — 
 
 collector of internal revenue or his deputies. United States marshal or his 
 deputies. 
 
 Consider for a moment, Mr. President, such legislation as this, 
 applicable to 106,000 people, in the enjoyment of the right to 
 personal liberty and domicile in the midst of a hostile race, by 
 as solemn a treaty as this Government ever concluded, by which 
 they are turned over to be taken bodily in a man-hunt by any 
 one of the officers or their numerous deputies, of the character 
 described in the sentence which I have just read. What asource 
 of abuse! What a weapon of violence! What an instrument of 
 'extortion and oppression and bribery! 
 
 Any wandering deputy marshal, or collector, or anybody who 
 can be called an official in the United States customs depart- 
 ment anywhere in this country, can lay his hand upon a human 
 being without a warrant or precept. No court surper vises him, 
 no controlling authority holds the reins over him. It is a matter 
 entirely between the m in-hunter and his victim. If he lets him 
 go for a consideration there is nobody in particular to call him 
 to icco.mt. 
 
 This, be it ever remembered, is not a judicial proceeding. This 
 is the exercise of political power, and to exercise this political 
 power we propose to vest in a body of people in no way connected 
 with the courts (at least two-thirds of them are not), a power 
 which if it were invoked in Gre it B 'itain to-day in regard to 
 r.ny person, subject, or denizen, within the isl ind, would shake 
 
11 
 
 the foundation of that Government so that it would topple to its 
 fall. 
 
 When people are to be deprived of their liberty, when they 
 are to be detained, when they are to be convicted, when they 
 are to suffer the extreme punishment of banishment, and that 
 through the action of a judge, as in this case, although he acts 
 not judicially but politically, all experience shows, and all civil- 
 ized legislation provides, that to authorize one man to arrest an- 
 other he ought to have a warrant for that arrest and detention. 
 It is under the seal of the court. The hand of the court is upon 
 its officer.' He must produce his man before the judge, or magis- 
 tra'e, or court which issues the warrant. For any irregularity 
 in the arrest the prisoner can make complaint. But here is no 
 warrant at all. The mere fact that a man is a Chinese author- 
 izes any one of these deputies or officials to demand his certifi- 
 cate, and if he does not immediately show it, to lay hands upon 
 him and dispose of him in the manner which I shall indicate. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Will the Senator from Minnesota allow me 
 to supplement his remark? It is not necessary that the man 
 should even be a Chinese. It would be quite sufficient that these 
 irresponsible officers supposed him to be one. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. That is probably true. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Would the judge deport him then? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Now, after the kidnaping proceeding this fol- 
 lows: The apprehended man is — 
 to be taken before a United States judge. 
 
 What judge? Where? Of the district where the man is seized? 
 Naturally so, but the statute does not say so. A Chinese person 
 seized in Oregon can be taken to California and vice versa, or he 
 can be taken to the city of New York->- 
 
 wbose duty it shall be to order that he be deported from the United States 
 as provided in this act and in the act to which this is an amendment, imless 
 he shall establish clearly— 
 
 Note the burden of proof — 
 
 to the satisfaction of said judge, that by reason of accident, sickness, or 
 other unavoidable cause, he has been unable to procure his certificate, and 
 to the satisfaction of said United States judge, and by at least one credible 
 witness other than Chinese, that he was a resident of the United States on 
 the 5th of May, 1892. 
 
 I was very much pleased to hear the criticisms of the venera- 
 ble Senator from Illinois [Mr. Palmer] on this subject. 
 
 Section 6 of the act of 1892 provides that there should be “one 
 credible white witness.” The thing has been transformed but 
 has not been materially changed in the eye of justice in the 
 amendment which I hold in my hand. He must establish it — 
 
 By at least one credible witness other than Chinese. 
 
 Little by little all civilized nations have adopted an axiom- 
 atic law of evidence that the testimony of any man can be 
 heard when it is given under the sanctions and ceremonies of 
 his religion, or upon his conscience if he has no religious belief 
 respecting the sanctity of an oath. All experience, all philo- 
 sophic jurisprudence here where the common law obtains, and 
 elsewhere in countries where the civil law prevails, has settled 
 down upon the conclusion that the objections to a witness go 
 only to his credibility. All systems of law will hear his story; 
 will weigh the facts and circumst inces; will confront him with 
 other witnesses; will measure his story by other competent evi- 
 dence. But under this statute the Chinese can not be heard 
 TOO 
 
12 
 
 for the purpose of establishing his most inestimable rights. He 
 can not establish by the testimony of one Chinese witness, or 
 ten or twenty Chinese witnesses, that he has complied or is 
 entitled to comply with the provisions of this law. 
 
 Now, it may be, it naturally would be among this peculiar peo- 
 ple, that the only sources of proof which mustthus be furnished 
 clearly to the satisfaction of the judge are among their own peo- 
 ple. They are not to be heard for the purpose of plenary proof, 
 or heard at all. The accused may have drifted to New York or 
 to St. Paul, having a companion there who has known him, 
 when there is not a white man within 2,000 or 4,000 miles who 
 could give the least attestation concerning him. 
 
 He is seized in New York or in St. Paul; he is taken before a 
 United States judge, brought there without a warrant, by an 
 underling without any authority except his official connection 
 with another department than that concerned in the adminis- 
 tration of justice; and in such case as that which I have sup- 
 posed the Chinese is utterly remediless by the simple automatic 
 operation of a law, and he immediately goes under the yoke of 
 the penal provisions of this statute. 
 
 And if upon the hearing it shall appear that he is so entitled to a certifi- 
 cate, it shall be granted upon his paying the cost. 
 
 That is a touch of meanness which speaks for itself. 
 
 Should it appear that said Chinaman had procured a certificate, which has 
 been lost or destroyed 
 
 Mr. PLATT. What cost? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. It does not say what cost. The question forcibly 
 illustrates the powers of oppression of which this act is suscep- 
 tible. 
 
 Now, about this Chinese testimony, which I was about to de- 
 part from without suggesting another consideration which had 
 occurred to me. Here is a Chinese person before a judge, de- 
 prived perchance of the only testimony by which he can estab- 
 lish his I’ight. The scene is a United States court room. The 
 proceedings of a criminal trial are suspended for a moment to 
 enable the judge to cease to be a judge and to perform this 
 act of political administration. It is over. The trial of a 
 person, white man or Chinese, accused of felony against a law 
 of the United States is resumed, and this same Chinese, whose 
 testimony and the bystanders of his nationality whose testi- 
 mony has been rejected by the judge in his capacity of a po- 
 litical administrator by the force of this statute, happen to 
 know all about the crime of the culprit who is upon trial. The 
 United States law puts these same Chinese witnesses into the 
 box to prove the allegation of an indictment in a trial against a 
 white man. The testimony is received, and if it is credible, con- 
 viction and sentence of imprisonment, or perhaps of death, fol- 
 low. Who will say that this statute was not designed for op- 
 pression, that it was not written by a cunning hand for the pur- 
 pose of making possible and lawful a perverted and cruel use of 
 political power. It takes a, man cunningly beyond the reach of 
 the protection of the courts, and turns him over to the tender 
 mercies of what little he can get out of such provisions as this: 
 
 He shall be detained and judgment suspended a reasonable time to enable 
 him to procure a duplicate from the officer granting it, and in such cases the 
 cost of said arrest and trial shall be in the discretion of the court. 
 
 And any Chinese person, other than a Chinese iaborer. having a right to 
 be and remain in the United States, desiring such certificate as evidence of 
 such right, may apply for and receive the same without charge. 
 
 700 
 
13 
 
 Then follows section 2, containing certain definitions as to la- 
 borers. I do not know that I have any particular fault with that 
 definition, but as to merchants I will read: 
 
 The term “ merchant,” as employed herein and In the acts of which this is 
 amendatory, shall have the following meaning and none other; A merchant 
 is a person engaged in huying and selling merchandise, at a fixed place of 
 business, which business is conducted in his name, and who during the time 
 he claims to be engaged as a merchant, does not engage in the performance 
 of any manual labor, except such as is necessary in the conduct of his busi- 
 ness as such merchant. 
 
 One would naturally suppose that the vocation of a man who had 
 been a merchant in the ordinary sense of the word, is something 
 which the community in which he deals could testify to; but 
 there is one particular provision in this definition concerning 
 which I speak with considerable diffidence, namely, thathe must 
 do business in his own name. My reading has informed me, and 
 conversation has instructed me, that of ail people in the world 
 the Chinese are an associative people in their business operations; 
 that they have carried the ideas of companies and corporations 
 and associations to a degree of refinement and perfection to which 
 we have not approached, and yet under this provision, as to all 
 the men who may belong to an association of that character who 
 have pooled their stocks, capital, and profits as mercha.nts and im- 
 porters, invited to this country by treaty and confirmed by statute, 
 they are absolutely deprived of the right of enjoying those busi- 
 ness relations and can not exempt themselves from the punitory 
 and pursuing clauses of this act, which follows them into every 
 portion of this land and makes them liable to have the hand of 
 numerous officials placed upon them without precept, warrant, 
 or authority of law except as derived from this statute. 
 
 Mr. PLA.TT. He can not cut his own wood. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The Senator from Connecticut remarks that he 
 can not cut his own wood except it is necessary in the conduct 
 of his business as such merchant. 
 
 Where an application is made by a Chinaman for entrance into the United 
 States on the ground that he was formerly engaged in this country as a 
 merchant, he shall establish by the testimony of two credible witnesses 
 other than Chinese the fact that he conducted such business as hereinbe- 
 fore defined for at least one year before his departure from the United 
 States, and that during such year he was not engaged in the performance 
 of any manual labor, except such as was necessary in the conduct of his 
 business as such merchant, and in default of such proof shall be refused 
 landing. 
 
 This whole proposed law is zx post facto, if that term can be 
 applied to a proceeding which is" not judicial, but political and 
 administrative. Penalties are enacted which had no existence 
 whatever in common Law, statute law. or in legal contemplationi 
 of any kind, until the act of 1892 called them into being, and they 
 deprive the Chinese of a legal status which was perfectly unas- 
 sailable before those penalties were enacted. 
 
 How is this class of offenses contrived and created under the- 
 general right of the Government to say what it shall do with 
 aliens in its midst, concerning which the Supreme Court has set- 
 tled the doctrine for the present, at least? A man is required 
 to do something which he was never required to do before, tO' 
 register, to take out a certificate. He does not do it. His re- 
 fusal creates the crime. Itcreates the crime, and the crime pro- 
 duces the penalty. 
 
 I find it hard to use language accurately here; but after all 
 has been said and done it results that this crime and this pen- 
 alty are not justiciable matters; they are matters of political and 
 700 
 
14 
 
 executive concern. After the studious use of judicial and fo- 
 rensic language thoughout this statute, and the invocation into 
 this arena (for it is not a forum) of United States judges for its 
 execution, we are told, and told conclusively by the Supreme 
 Courtof theUnited States, that it is not a judicial, is nota crim- 
 inal, is not a penal proceeding at all, but that all these conse- 
 quences, from arrest down to conviction and execution of the sen- 
 tence, are purely matters of political administration. 
 
 Such order of deportation shall be executed by the United States marshal 
 of the district within which such order is made, and he shall execute the 
 same with all convenient dispatch : and pending the execution of such order 
 such Chinese person shall remain in the custody of the United States mar- 
 shal, and shall not be admitted to bail. 
 
 I was going to say he might want to appeal. He can not ap- 
 peal. The proceeding is not judicial. It is political and admin- 
 istrative. He might want to give bail, but he can not do it. 
 That is cut off. Bail is judicial. Political administration knows 
 it not. Even while invoking the interposition of the superior 
 officers of the Treasury or of the President of the United States 
 the Chinese merchant who has come to this country must be de- 
 tained; he can not be admitted to bail. 
 
 Mr. GRAY. He can have a writ of habeas corpus, though. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I am not so certain about anything good in this 
 act. I should want to examine it closely before I concede even 
 that point to a gentleman so frank as my friend from Delaware. 
 
 Mr. GRAY. I am trying to find something good in it. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The provision of the bill is: 
 
 The certificate herein provided for shall contain the photograph of the ap- 
 plicant, together with his name, local residence, and occupation, and a copy 
 of such certificate, with a duplicate of such photograph attached, shall be 
 filed in the office of the United States collector of internal revenue of the 
 district in which such Chinaman makes application. 
 
 Such photographs in duplicate shall be furnished by each applicant in 
 such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury 
 
 That is a matter of detail. I do not think it particular oppres- 
 sive. I have a repugnance to calling upon any man within the 
 protection of the law for his photograph to be filed away as a 
 basis for a possible criminal prosecution or even for his protec- 
 tion. We call such collections of photographs in civilized and 
 judicial life by a particular name. 
 
 Mr. PERKINS. They were at the World's Pair. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Yes, I have no doubt. We invited the Chinese 
 to the World’s Pair. China came with the meekness she has 
 always shown, even when we tried to abrogate the treaty, and 
 in the face of all this scandalous legislation she shamed us by a 
 magnificent exhibition. 
 
 Mr. PERKINS. They had to have their photographs, though. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I do not recollect any statute to that effect. 
 
 Mr. PERKINS. It was a regulation. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I do not recollect any statute of the United States 
 to that effect. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. There is no statute. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Now, Mr. President, from the decision of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States respecting the action of the 
 judge in executing this statute, it plainly follows that such action 
 by him is not judicial but is political and administrative. He 
 does not proceed upon precept, complaint, indictm3nt, or by 
 jury, or in court. No judicial record is made of his action. _ A 
 United States judge is attempted to be transformed into a politi- 
 cal, executive, administrative officer. He is translated to a sep- 
 700 
 
15 
 
 ^arate department of tlie Government. If I were aUnited States 
 judge I would say ‘ ‘ These duties which you have attempted to im- 
 pose upon me are not judicial, and I shall not perform them.” 
 This Government has no power or authority by statute to im- 
 pose duties of that character upon a judge without his consent. 
 I would rather have been one of those French officials who issued 
 lettres de cachet under Louis XIV. I would rather have been one 
 •of those self-constituted judges who sat at the entrance of the 
 prisons during the massacres of the French Revolution and ad- 
 judged the emancipated captive to life or death as they chose. 
 My friend, the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. HawleyJ, refers 
 me to the fugitive-slave law; but there was judicial process, there 
 was warrant, there was habeas corpus, there was a court and a 
 judge acting judicially. The iniquity of that law was that there 
 was no trial by jury, and it convulsed the conscience of this coun- 
 try. How did .Judge Lacombe, the United States circuit judge in 
 the city of New York, dispose of a case of this kind under the 
 act of 1892? He performed the administrative and political du- 
 ties of his judicial office, but finding that, owing to the imperfec- 
 tions of the act of 1892, no particular officer was authorized to 
 deport the Chinese person and no funds provided for this pur- 
 pose, he Issued an order, ironical, though perhaps not so intended, 
 (I think 1 can state its substance correctly), that this Chinese 
 ■can go; he is set at large, to be deported when the United States 
 furnishes the instrumentality for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. President, it was nearly one hundred years ago when the 
 only precedent for this legislation found a place on our statute 
 books. During the Administration of John Adams, and in the 
 year 1798, three alien acts were passed, the material part of 
 which was that the President of the United States was given the 
 power to deport any alien who it could be reasonably appre- 
 hended was guilty, or intended to be guilty, of treasonable prac- 
 tices or was undesirable as a denizen. It was a war measure, 
 and nobody attempted to justify it by any other pretext. It was 
 ■designed for ‘‘war in procinct,” to use the words of Milton. The 
 frigates of the United States had been engaged in battle with 
 the frigates of the French Directory in the West Indian waters, 
 and the privateers of Prance, under letters of marque and repri- 
 sal, were carrying American cargoes into ports for condemnation 
 prize. Three of our envoys who had been at Paris in the endeavor 
 to adjust our very difficult relations with that peculiar govern- 
 ment, had been subjected to importunities for money as a bribe 
 by emmissaries of Barras, the voluptuary, and of Talleyrand, that 
 cynical and diplomatic peculator, and they had returned to this 
 country. The people rose in indignation, 'and Congress granted 
 to the President of the United States the power conferred by the 
 alien acts of 1798. What was the result? The nation rose in 
 protest against the statute. It swept the Republican party (so 
 called) of that day from power, and it gave to their opponents 
 an uninterrupted ascendancy for over twenty years. 
 
 In vain John Adams, from his place as President, and from 
 his retirement, protested and proclaimed that the statute was 
 justifiable as a war measure, and justifiable on that ground alone. 
 It produced opinions which have been cardinal as doctrines of 
 constitutional law for many of our most advanced thinkers and 
 statesmen; and I shall beg permission to read what .James Mad- 
 ison said. It is refreshing to hear how clearly his voice speaks, 
 .as if attuned to d \j, from across the interval of nearly a hundred 
 700 
 
IG 
 
 years, respecting tliis act, designed as a measure of protectioa 
 at thai time. Mr. Madison wrote: 
 
 With respect to alien enemies, no doubt has been intimated as to the Fed- 
 eral authority over them; the Constitution having expressly delegated to 
 Congress the power to declare war against any nation, and, of course, to 
 treat it and all its members as enemies. With respect to aliens who are not 
 enemies, but members of nations in peace and amity with the United States, 
 the power assumed by the act of Congress is denied to be constitutional; 
 and it is accordingly against this act that the protest of the General Assembly 
 is expressly and exclusively directed. (Ibid.. .ISI). 
 
 Were it admitted, as is contended, that the '• actconcerning aliens ” hasfor 
 its object, not a penal, but a preventive justice, it would still remain to be 
 proved that it comes within the constitutional power of the Federal legisla- 
 ture; and. if within its power, that the legislature has exercised it in a con- 
 stitutional manner. * * * But it can never be admitted that the removal 
 of aliens, authorized by the act, is to be considered, not as punishment for 
 an offense, but as a measure of precuation and prevention. 
 
 It the banishment of an alien from a country into which he has been in- 
 vited as the asylum most auspicious to his happiness— a country where he 
 may have formed the most tender connections; where he may have invested 
 his entire property, and acquired property of the real and permanent as well 
 as the movable and temporary kind; where he enjoys, under the laws, a 
 greater share of the blessings of personal security and personal liberty than 
 he can elsewhere hope lor; * * * if a banishment of this sort be not a 
 punishment, and among the severest of punishments, it would be difficult 
 to imagine a doom to which the name can be applied. And, if it be a pun- 
 ishment, it will remain to be inquired whether it can be constitutionally in- 
 flicted, on mere suspicion, by the single will of the executive magistrate, on 
 persons convicted of no personal offense against the laws of the land, nor 
 involved in any offense against the law of nations, charged on the foreign 
 state of which they are members. (Ibid. 5,%.) 
 
 * * * It does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitu- 
 tion, as citizens are parties to it, that, whilst they actually conform to it, 
 they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws 
 than they are parties to the Constitution. Yet it will not be disputed that as 
 they owe on one hand a temporary obedience they are entitled in return 
 to their protection and advantage. If aliens had no rights under the Con- 
 stitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished 
 without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary 
 principle been carried in every part of the United States, that except on 
 charges of treason an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the spe- 
 cial one of being tried by a jury of which one-half may be also aliens. 
 
 It is said, ffirther, that, by the law and practice of nations, aliens may be 
 removed, at discretion, for offenses against the law of nations ; that Con- 
 gress are authorized to define and punish such offenses; and that to be 
 dangerous to the peace of society is, in aliens, one of those offenses. 
 
 The distinction between alien enemies and alien friends is a clear and con- 
 clusive answer to this argument. Alien enemies are under the law of na- 
 tions, and liable to be punished for offenses against it. Alien friends, except 
 in the single case of public ministers, are under the municipal law, and must 
 be tried and punished according to that law only. (Ibid., 556.) 
 
 But I need not read further. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, it may be said that the Supreme Court of 
 the United States has overruled some of the constitutional posi- 
 tions thus taken by Mr. Madison; but if it has, it has simply de- 
 fined our powers; it has not extended them. Because the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States has said that there is a region 
 of power limitless in extent open tons, we are not bound to enter 
 it. All things may be lawful to us, but all things are not expe- 
 dient. Therefore I say, inasmuch as this matter is not judicial, 
 that if we are to proceed at all under this our political, admin- 
 istrative, and executive power to use these terrible instrumen- 
 talities of abuse by irresponsible persons, which this law so 
 amply confers upon them, such instrumentalities should be regu- 
 lated by a statute bringing them within and under judicial con- 
 trol. 
 
 The Supreme Court has decided that in no event and under no 
 existing legislation can the Chinese at any stage in the proceed- 
 ing , whether initiative or as they go on or finally, be brought within 
 700 
 
17 
 
 the protection of the judiciary. I have no doubt that it was the 
 general opinion of the profession when the act of 1892 was passed 
 that somewhere in the course of the proceedings the judiciary 
 could lawfully intervene, as it now seems it can not. Hence I am 
 aijjcious to see this legislation changed in some way so that if im- 
 migration from China to this country is to cease (and I confess it 
 seems to me very desirable that it shall) this country shall not 
 scandalize and disgrace itself by such political, arbitrary, and 
 administrative processes as this legislation has been held to war- 
 rant. 
 
 If a Chinese can be deported, any other aliens can he deported, 
 coming here under the sanction of whatever treaty, however 
 liberal. The country was greatly excited two years ago by the 
 performances of the Mafia at New Orleans, and it was charged 
 and believed that a secret society dedicated to assassination was in 
 our midst. Its members were aliens. Nobody proposed to de- 
 port them. Nobody has ever proposed to deport the Italian la- 
 borers because, like the Chinese, they come here expecting to 
 return home. They take their wages back with them; they do 
 not pretend to assimilate with our people. 
 
 Mr. GRAY. We do not want the Chinese to assimilate. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Nobody does; and we do not want that kind of 
 Italians to assimilate. 
 
 Mr. President, if the Chinese can be made amenable to such 
 discipline as this by refusing to register, they can be made 
 amenable for any other refusal that may result from an astutely 
 framed statute. This being a political m atter, a matter of ad- 
 ministration, the United States can pass a law that any China- 
 man who refuses to conform to the ordinances of San Francisco 
 shall be deported, or that any Chinese person over 45 years of 
 age shall be deported. There is no limitation; the power of this 
 Government is absolute over these people politically and ad- 
 ministratively, because the law is a justification unto itself and 
 can not be judicially executed. 
 
 Again, if you can proceed, under the decision of the Supreme 
 Court, against all the Chinese in this country, you can proceed, 
 as this act does, in some respects, against a certain class. If you 
 can do that, you can proceed against one Chinese by special leg- 
 islation of this character. You can enact that certain men, 
 supposed to be members of the Six Companies, shall be deported. 
 If any one should establish a Chinese newspaper in this coun- 
 try. and it was not agreeable, you can enact that any man estab- 
 lishing and editing a Chinese newspaper shall be deported; or 
 any other act or omission, however innocent, however indif- 
 ferent in the general current of political or social concerns, can 
 be made the standard, and, the law being a justification unto 
 itself, and the merest instrumentality of the executive power of 
 the Government, the Chinese against whom the blow is directed 
 can be deported. 
 
 Mr. GRAY. May I ask the Senator from Minnesota whether 
 he thinks that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the late 
 case in which tl>ey were called upon to deliver an opinion goes 
 to the extent which he has described? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think it does. 
 
 Mr. GRAY. In asserting the power of the United States? 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I think it does. There were three writs of 
 habeas corpus, presenting nearly every phase of the question, it 
 seems to me. 
 
 700 2 
 
18 
 
 Mr. GRAY. I agree with the Senator from Minnesota that 
 the obligations of the Constitution of the United States rest just 
 as heavily upon us as Senators as they do upon the Supreme 
 Court; that the Supreme Court may mark out the area into which 
 legislative power may extend, in their opinion, but it does not 
 T-elieve the judgment of an individual Senator from the duty of 
 deciding for himself in any given case as to what the Constitu- 
 tion means. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. The Senator from Delaware has expressed my 
 opinion in the most precise and apt manner. That is precisely 
 my view, and upon that I stand, although I differ from the Sen- 
 ator in the argument I am making against this whole body of 
 legislation. 
 
 More than that can be done. As I said, if all can be deported, 
 classes can, a dozen can. one can. Unquestionably a statute could 
 be passed ordering the deportation under this decision of every 
 Chinese who, after a period of six months, should be found liv- 
 ing within a city of (1,000 people, or within the city of San Fran- 
 cisco, which has been the most complaining, and perhaps justly 
 so, upon this question. The complaint is not, as I understand 
 it, that the Chinese through the country, in the orange groves, 
 the vineyards, and wheat fields and mines are an unmixed evil, 
 but it is their conglomeration in the great city of the coast, at 
 the Golden Gate, that is objected to. 
 
 We might under the compendious and universal power which 
 the Supreme Court has confirmed in Congress, pass an act that 
 all Chinese found living in San Francisco shall be subject to de- 
 portation. There would be sense and humanity in that, if con- 
 trolled by judicial processes. It would drive that idle class back 
 home or out into the surrounding country, where, I am informed, 
 laborers of that class are much to be desired and are not too plen- 
 tiful. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. The Senator is mistaken in that 
 regard. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, there is no nation on the con- 
 tinent of Europe, however feeble, that we would ever have en- 
 acted this legislation against, however undesirable their labor- 
 ing people as immigrants. Our conscience would not have per- 
 mitted it, to say nothing of the fear of reprisal or retribution 
 from the other nation. We have a general idea, unhappily too 
 prevalent, that we need not deal with the Chinese upon the same 
 footing of equal binding force and obligation, to say nothing of 
 equality of right, that we deal with other people. Yet. Mr. 
 President, we can not im.agine that a nation like China is going 
 to rest forever quietly under these inflictions. She has protested 
 against this legislation from the beginning. 
 
 Suppose she should treat our missionaries, those Christian 
 men and women who have erected the cross of the Redeemer 
 throughout that Empire, as we have treated and propose to treat 
 her subjects in this country. The voice of the entire American 
 people would be for war. 
 
 China is the most ancient empire in the wofld. She contains 
 one-fifth of the human race. She was in her prime when the 
 phalanx of the Macedonian stood upon the banks of the Indus, 
 and she saw the Roman Empire fade like an “insubstantial 
 pageant’’ and “leave not a rack behind.” And it is not im- 
 probable that she will survive the most stable governments of 
 to-day as mere ephemera in the experience of her existence. 
 
 700 
 
19 
 
 Yet, old and colossal and impenetrable as she has hitherto been, 
 that vast reservoir of wealth, that swarming hive of population 
 has, since the opium war, been slowly yielding to the advances 
 of civilization and throwing open that great mai’ket to the world. 
 Yet we, perhaps from passion, perhaps in part to carry out an 
 ill-founded desire, are jeopardizing that commerce for which 
 not only there, but elsewhere, we have been looking intently 
 for many years, trying to build up our American shipping and 
 then to reestablish and extend our commercial relations with all 
 the countries of the world. 
 
 Can anyone suppose that, with legislation of this character, 
 enforced in this way, the American merchant or the Ameri- 
 can marine are to have eventually their share in that immense 
 and rapidly growing commerce? 
 
 Great Britain has no trouble of that kind. She enacts no laws 
 of this character against the Chinese. They go up into British 
 North America and settle there, subject only to head money. I 
 do not know that they have enacted any hostile laws, though 
 I think Australia has. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. All countries have, except the Fiji 
 Islands. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. I say that the Dominion of Canada has not en- 
 acted exclusion laws against the Chinese. Is it not worth while 
 to consider whether means can not be adopted to preserve a good 
 understanding between us and the Chinese Empire, complaisant 
 and yielding as it has always been on this subject of immigra- 
 tion. China does not want its people to come here. It disap- 
 proves it. To our objections to their coming among us, the 
 Chinese Empire has always responded according to our desire. 
 As my friend, the junior Senator from California [Mr. Perkins], 
 said in his very interesting speech of yesterday, their bones 
 are not even permitted to remain here. They are sent back. 
 
 What is that commerce? In 1891 the imports into China, re- 
 duced as' nearly as I can reduce them to our money, amounted to 
 $167, .500, 000, and the exports were $101,000,000 in round num- 
 bers. I mean from all over the globe. Of this Great Britain 
 had by far the largest part, but the authority which I consulted 
 states that the United States comes next. It is a growing com- 
 merce. The needs of that innumerable horde of people, when 
 they get to needing what we have to give them, will increase 
 more and more every year, for civilization creates wants which 
 will extend enormously. 
 
 The Chinese Government has granted a concession to its own 
 subjects to build a railroad from a city on the coast to Peking, 
 over 1,000 miles, and a railroad is now being constructed from 
 the north coast of the Empire to the boundary line between it 
 and Russia. 
 
 Every indication of that kind tends to show that in the slow 
 process of time — and events have always been si ow to that people — 
 great advantages are destined to come t<) the civilized world. 
 Why, then, provoke antagonism? Why build up a wall higher 
 and more impregnable than the Chinese wall was in the old time 
 before the Tartar invasion? 
 
 Mr. President, no country in Europe has such legislation as 
 that against which I speak. Deportations of peoples have not 
 been unknown in history, but they have been infrequent. The 
 Spaniards expelled the Moors from Spain. History has writ- 
 ten her lines of reprobation over that atrocity, and Spain has 
 700 
 
20 
 
 never recovered from it to this day. The edict of Nantes was 
 revoked, and the best and most industrious people in France 
 fled from that kingdom and built up great industries in Eng- 
 land; many of them came to South Carolina and formed some of 
 the choicest blood in that State. Russia has expelled the Jews, 
 and how the moral sentiment of the civilized world has risen 
 against the deed! It has provoked the protest of the religious 
 press, the indignation of every tolerant man, and it h;'s un- 
 locked the colTers of charity. The President of the United 
 States saw fit to give to Congress in his message an expression 
 of his disapproval, and he voiced the sentiment of this country. 
 Yet all the time this was going on, we have been legislating 
 and insisting with Pharisaical self-righteousne.ss in regard to 
 the Chinese precisely in the manner in which the autocrat of 
 Russia has been proceeding against the Jews, and for which we 
 reprobated him. 
 
 Upon the table of the Secretary lie the protests of some of the 
 best elements of this country, and among them the protests of 
 faculties of univei’sities. We may say in a cynical way, “ we shall 
 not regard them; they are not minding their business: they would 
 best attend to their own concerns; ” but I tell you that there is a 
 voice in this country which will not be stilled, but which will be 
 heard. We can not afford, no party can afford — and I speak now 
 f.rom no party standpoint whatever — no party can afford to ignore 
 or treat with silent contempt, or pass by such protests as these. 
 That was tried in the days of slavery. It failed, and if public 
 sentiment ever awakens upon this subject we shall not then at- 
 tempt by these devices and tricks of legislation to accomplish 
 that indirectly which we would not dare to attempt directly. 
 
 Opposed as I am to Chinese immigration, wishing to see this 
 evil remedied, let me call attention to another fact. 
 
 What is this Mongolian horde that will overrun this country 
 like the hordes of Ghengis Khan? The United States has 
 65,000,000 people. How many Chinese are there in the United 
 States? One hundred and six thousand according to the last 
 census. There is not a thousand difference between the num- 
 ber who were here in 1890, according to the census, and the 
 number here in 1880. In 1880 the Chinese population of San 
 Francisco was 25,000 in round numbers; in 1890, it was 21,000 — 
 a falling off of 4,000. By natural processes this matter is being 
 settled. 
 
 Mr. President, I have taken more time than I intended, but 
 the subject is one of large proportions and of inflnite complexity 
 the more it is considered. 
 
 This is a very small part of the case in opposition to the sys- 
 tem of legislation now protested against. Much more might be 
 said of it. Opposed as I am to Chinese immigration, wishing to 
 see the contact of that people with ours cease as soon as possible, 
 I do desire to see expelled from our statute books this flagitious 
 and ferocious legislation which it is proposed to continue and 
 make more efficacious by the amendment to the act of 1892, now 
 under consideration. 
 
 700 
 
 O