52D (JONaRESS, ) SENATE. ( Ex. DOC. 2d Session. \ \ ^o. 54. m THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TRANSMITTING, In reply to the resolution of the Senate of January 23, 1893, official cor- respondence of the Government of the United States and China, relating to the acts of Congress forbidding immigration of Chinese and the treaty stipulations betiveen the two countries. February 6, 1893. 一 Read in executive session and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. February 8， 1893. 一 Ordered to be printed and recommitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations. To the Senate of the United States: I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State on the subject of the official correspondence of the Government of China with the United States relating to the acts of Congress forbidding immigration of Chinese and the treaty stipulations between the two countries, which was called for by the resolution of the Senate dated January 23, 1893. Benj. Harrison. Executive Mansion, Washington, February 3, 1893. Department of State, Washington, February 3, 1893. The President ： The Secretary of State, in pursuance of tlie resolution of the Senate of January 23 last, directing him to send to tlie Senate^ if not incom- patible with the public interest, the official correspondence of the Gov- ernment of China with the United - States relating to the acts of Con- gress forbidding immigration of Chinese and the treaty stipulations between the two countries, lias tlie honor to inclose herewith all the correspondence tearing on the subject under consideration subsequent to that submitted in Secretary of State Blaine's report, dated January 27, 1890. Respectfully submitted. John W. Foster. / I f d lli 2 ' CHINESE IMMIGRATION. List of papers. 1. Mr. Tsui to Mr. Blaine, March 26, 1890. 2. Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine, July 25， 1890. 3. Mr. Tsui to Mr. Blaine, October 1， 1890. 4. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Tsui, October 6, 1890. 5. Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine, October 22, 1890. 6. Mr. Tsui to Mr. Blaine, December 4, 1890. 7. Same to same, March 22, 1892. 8. Same to same, April 12， 1892. 9. Same to same, April 21， 1892. 10. Same to same, May 5, 1892. 11. Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine, June 17, 1892. 12. Same to same, June 20， 1892. 13. Same to same, July 5, 1892. 14. Mr. Denby to Mr. Foster, August 18， 1892. 15. Mr. Tsui to Mr. Foster, November 1, 1892. 16. Same to same, November 11， 1892. 17. Mr. Denby to Mr. Foster, November 29, 1892. 18. Mr. Wharton to Mr. Tsui, December 10, 1892. No. 1. Mr. Tsui to Mr. Blaine, Chinese Legation, Washington, March 26, 1890. (Eeceived March 28.) SiE- : Under date of the 26th of January, 1889， my predecessor sub- mitted some considerations to your Department upon tlie act of your Congress of October 1， 1888. Mr. Secretary Bayard, on the 2d of Feb- ruary, 1889, referred to that note as containing " highly important mat- ters " and promised to " make more extended reply ，， thereto. But nearly six months having passed without a reply being received, and in view of the advent meanwhile of a new administration of your nation, my Gov- ernment deeming it important that the subject be freshly brought to your attention, my predecessor, under date of July 8， 1889, submitted to you further considerations, which, it was hoped, would bring about some change in the legislative and executive attitude of the American Government. The receipt of that note was courteously acknowledged on the 15tli of the same month, and the assurance given that tlie sub- ject would "receive the very careful and prompt attention of the De- partment." I have waited patiently upon the strength of this assurance for the past eight months, and should not now break silence on the subject if I could do so with a pro})er regard for the instructions of my Government and for the condition of 】ny unfortunate countrymen, whose ri^lits and interests are so sorely vexed by this legislation of your Congress and by the resulting action of the executive department. When it is borne in mind tliat a year and a half has passed since your Congress and President united in a measure which («as the Supreme Court decided) compelled the authorities to disregard and trample upon solemn treaty stipulations, and din ing wliich time not only the measure itself has been most rigidly efilbi'ccd, but to its severities have been added by execu- tive action new restrictions upon Oliinese subjects in the United States, it certainly will not surprise you if I co 川 miinicate to you the earnest and anxious desire of the Imperial Govei nment that I should obtain CLASSIC TV • USM CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 3 from you some expression of the views and intentions of your Govern- ment on this important subject. In order that I may enlist your sympathy with the desire of my Gov- ernment, and that yon may be persuaded of the reasonableness of it, I beg tli at you will indulge me while I state some of the effects of tlie act of October 1， 1888， and of the resulting policy of the Treasury Depart- ment. Although the treaty of 1880 stipulated that Chinese laborers then in the United States should a be allowed to go and come of tlieir own free will and accord/' and should have tlie same treatment as otller foreigners, they cod formed to the exceptional provision of a law wliich required them, on departure for temporary visits to their native laud, to take a certificate from the customs authorities at the port of depar- ture, descriptive of their person, and which Contained a statement tliat tlie person to whom it was issued was "entitled * * * to return and reenter the United States." Tlie official statistics show that at the time the act of 1888 went into effect there were outstanding at the sin- gle port of San Francisco over twenty tliousaiicl of these certificates. At that very time there were about six Liuidred of the holders of these certificates wlio were on tlie high seas en route for San Francisco, and wlio liad no notice or means of knowledge of the passage of the act till they reached that port ； and yet the supreine tribunal of your country has decided that it was the duty of tlie authorities of the port of San Francisco, under tlie act, to dishonor tlieir own certilicates and turn these poor laborers back from its shores out upon the broad ocean and force them to seek a more hospitable liaven elsewhere. The tens of tb on sands of Chinese subjects who temporarily left the shores of the United States, armed with the signed and sealed assur- ance of this Government of tlieir right to return, and relying upon its good faith, in almost every case left behind them in this country prop- erty, business, families, relatives, obligations, or contracts, which have been imperiled, broken up, or in some shape injuriously affected by tlieir unexpected aud uuwarranted exclusion. The vast liuiaber of Chi- nese laborers who were in the United States at the time of the passage of the act of 1888 had come here under the guaranty of solemn treaty- stipulations, which allowed them " to go and come of their own free will and accord" and on the solemn assurance tliat they would be main- tained in this privilege against u legislative enactment;" and under this act, if tliey should visit tlieir native land, drawn tliitlier by the ties of family, patriotism, or business, they must sacrifice and abandon all tlieir interests and property in tlie United States ； they must choose between a complete breaking up of long- established business relations here, and a perpetual banishment from tlieir native land by a continu- ous residence in this country. The foregoing shows tliat there are three classes of Chinese laborers whose treaty rights liave been grievously impaired in different ways by the operation of the act of 1888, to wit, those who were on the ocean, those who were abroad holding return certificates, and those who were in tlie United States at the time the act was passed. But there are two other classes of Chinese subjects wliose treaty rights have been abrogated or impaired since tliat act was passed, not by tlie direct ap- plication of its provisions, but, I am sorry to say, by new restrictions and regulations of the executive department of your Government. In ； iny notes of November 5 and December 16 last I have shown you how the transit of Chinese laborers through the United States has been ob- structed and in great measure cut off since October, 1888, notwithstand- ing the law officers of your Government acknowledge that there has S. Ex. 2 31 4 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. been no legislation of your Congress, either in 1882， in 1884, or in 1888， which in the sligliest degree affects the treaty rights on this subject. It has been serious enough when tlie Imperial Government beheld the manifest intention of your Congress in the years named to obstruct and finally abrogate the treaties existing between the two nations; but it regards with real alarm the apparent disposition of the Treasury De- partment to go even beyond tlie enactments of Congress in the same direction. In addition to the stoppage or obstruction of transit, the Chinese merchants who have been established in the United States, as well as those in China or in foreign nations who have trade relations with this country, have encountered much harsher treatment and in- creasing' embarrassment during the past year and a half from the cus- toms authorities, and it lias become iniicli more difficult than formerly for them to carry on commerce in and with tlie United States. Such, Mr. Secretary, are some of the losses, injuries, and hardships which have been and are being suffered by my countrymen as the direct and indirect effects of tlie passage of tlie act of 1888， and which, I trust, will more fully explain to you the anxious desire of my Government to receive from you spme expression of the views and intentions of your Government on the important subjects communicated in the cited notes of this legation. But I must ask your indulgence while I attempt, as briefly as I cau, to sliow you the reverse side of this question, to wit, how the American Government expects and deraauds the treaties to be observed in China, and how, in fact, tlie Imperial Government does observe and enforce tliem. And for tliis purpose I confine myself to tlie past two years, within which the most objectionable legislation and restrictions have been adopted in the United States. The two classes of American interests represented in China are, first, the missionaries and their propaganda, and, second, tlie merchants and tlieir commerce. I need not cite facts to show one so intelligent in the world's affairs as you that the most fruitful source of trouble and embarrassment for China in its relations witli the treaty powers has been the presence in my country of the missionaries. In substantia- tion of tliis, your own worthy minister quotes to your predecessor tlie language of Prince KuDg 1 in these words : The missionary question affects the whole question of peaceful relations with for- eign powers * * * the wliole question of their trade. (Foreign Eelations, 1887, P. 197.) But, notwithstanding the prejudices of our common people and the embarrassinents which constantly surround tlie authorities, the whole power of the Government has at all times been exercised to protect the lives and property of this disturbing class of foreigners. So far as I can remember, not a single American missionary lias lost his life, none of their treaty guaranties liave been violated with either the consent or coiinivarice of tlie Government, and every dollar of loss which they have sustained from violence brought about through either tlieir owu iminndmice or the sudden outbursts of the populace has been reim- bursed to them by the Government. And this has not only been true ns to tlie ])nst two years, but through every year since tlie first treaty lx'1 ween 1 lie t wo n;ii ions \v;is signed, in IS 11. I need wot j)oiiit oul liow marked lins Ikmmi \ lie coiH rast in this ivspprl of tlie treatment of (Jl)i- li esc residents in the I 了 iiifcl States. And it is to be noted that in the defense of tlie claiins of tlie missioiiaiics t lie Aineri (； an niinistor and liis (iovcinuiciit lmvc not been (toiilrnt will) rc(iuiring a. strict, observ- ance of treaty stipulations, but have gone beyoud tliem aud deuiaiided CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 5 protection and indemnity in cases where they admit that the terms of the treaties do not justify such demands. It has been continuously admitted tliat "the true construction of the treaties" does not secure to the missionaries the right of permanent residence or ownership of real estate in the interior of China; and yet, because the local authorities liave tolerated their residences in isolated cases, it is insisted that the American missionary thereby a acquires vested rights, which Ms own Government and tlie Imperial Govern- ment also are bound to secure to him if attacked." (Foreign ； Relations, 1888, Vol. I， pp. 220， 271.) And we find that the American minister at Peking has in the past two years been very zealous in demanding the protection of missionaries, reimbursemeDt of their losses, and reinstate- ment on tlieir lands in cases where it is admitted that the terms of the treaties do not sustain such demands, his position being that though "the United States could not, as a matter of treaty stipulation, insist" upon such treatment being awarded to American missionaries, yet where residence and ownership of land are "accorded to citizens or subjects of other foreign powers under tlie favored-nation clause, exact equality should be insisted upon." And the minister might well take such an advanced position, when it appears that lie lias been instructed by his chief to obtain for his countrymen "no less measure of privilege than is granted by treaty, conferred by favor, or procured througk use and custom for the missionaries of any other nation or creed." And this broad doctrine is advocated and insisted upon by the Secre- tary of State at a time when the Congress, tlie Executive, and the Supreme Court of liis country are setting it at defiance in cases where its application is invoked in behalf of Obinese residents in the United States. Your immediate predecessor even uses the freedom extended by China to foreigners in its treaties as an argument for tlie enlarged demands of the uiinister iu these words : When Cliina was opened by treaties with foreign powers to the entrance and resi- dence of foreigners, it was inevitable tliat the restricted limits of residence aud business prescribed in tliese treaties should be extended. (Foreign Relations, 1888， pp. 266， 272, 301， 325.) It would seem natural to presume that the " inevitable ，， effect which, the Secretary here notes was the logical and customary experience among western nations concerning treaty concessions and privileges. But, unfortunately, China is compelled to look elsewhere than to the United States for a realization of the experience so forcibly and une- quivocally assumed by this eminent authority. In 1868 the United States, for the first time, by treaty guaranties, opened its territory to tlie entrance and residence of Chinese upon the same terms as were ex- tended to the subjects of the most favored Dation. But the " inevita- ble ，， result of sucli an act, as announced by the American Secretary of State, was not realized in this country. So far from the privileges of "residence and business prescribed in the treaty" being "extended," they liave been steadily and persistently restricted ； first, by peaceful treaty negotiations in 1880: then by hostile legislation in 1882 and 1884 5 and, finally, by positive abrogation by Congress in 1888, ap- proved by the Executive and sanctioned by the Supreme Court. Bat, notwitlistauding this contrary treatment of the Chinese in the United States, the Imperial Government has steadily and uuiformly recognized and enforced, not only its plain treaty stipulations respect- ing this disturbing element introduced into its territory, but, in its de- sire to deal justly and pursue friendly relations witli America, it has gone beyond the treaties and yielded to the foregoing extreme and 6 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. illogical demands of your Governnient. And I am gratified to kuoAv that this spirit of conciliation lias been recognized by the honorable Secretary of State in the following words : Experience shows that by a moderate amount of conciliation and good will the rights of foreigners will be gradually extended and interpreted by the Chinese in a more liberal spirit aud beyoud tlie limits of the treaty ports. (Foreign Relations, 1888, p. 310.) Let us now turn for a few moments to the position of the American Goveruiiient iu respect to the rights of its merchants and commerce in China and tlie treatment they receive from the authorities there. It is natural tliat tlie American Groverimient should take a deep interest in this trade because of its extent and importance. Mr. Den by ， in a dis- patch dated July 14， 1888, reports on the foreign trade of China that the exports aud tlie imports from tlie United States stand second in vol- ume, or next to those of Great Britain. Yet in the past two years or more I am not aware of any specific complaint of injustice or hardship suffered by a single American mercliant in China, or any allegation of different treatment extended to tliein than to all other foreign mer- chants. The only question of trade which has arisen between the two Goveriiinents has been on the importation and regulation of trade in kerosene. Owing to its explosive character, many lives have been lost aud much property destroyed in Ghina ? and certain of tlie provincial authorities have urged upon the Imperial Government the restriction of its importation by governmental control of its sale and by internal taxation ； and, in furtherance of these views, one of tlie viceroys, in memorializing the Throne, referred to tlie position assumed by tlie United States in the exclusion of Chinese iinmigratiou, and said : If they can prohibit our going there because Chinese labor is injurious to their in- terests, we have an equal right to prohibit the importation of kerosene when it is injurious to us. But Minister Denby, usually so intelligent respecting Chinese mat- ters, is oblivious to the force of this argument and transmits it to Wash- ington, with the criticism that it is a " stupid memorial. " He follows it up with an earnest protest against tlie right of Cliina to levy an internal discriminating tax upon kerosene after it lias left the foreign merchant and passed into the interior, notwithstanding he admits that it is and long has been the law and practice of China that "once foreign goods have entered China and become the property of Chinese merchants, their taxation is a matter wholly and solely within the direction of China, " and notwithstanding he shows that the Supreme Court of tlie United States has recognized substantially the same power of taxation as belonging to tlie States of your Uuion. He further claims that such taxation is a violation of the spirit and intent of the treaty, though lie does not contend that any specific clause is infringed thereby. He maintains that "the interpretation (of treaties) shall be favorable rather than odious ； * * * that the reason of the treaty shall prevail." And in tliese positions he is supported by the Secretary of State. (Foreign Relations, 1887, ]"). 1915, 225; 1888, 267， 286.) If tli is ])()lic,y respect i ii^ treaties whicli was urged upon China had been follow ed in tlie United St}il( k s, liow (lii'lcrcnt would be the inter- national relations of the two countries to-day. Ohinn has welcomed A in* ricnii coniiiicicc ;iiid ))l;icc(l its inci'cliMiits upon :in rquul l'oot iii'u' in its ports with tlios (； of the inost lriciHlly and vokmI nation, and tlie only (|ii<'st ion of dilii'crcMcc, vvliicli has arisen is rcsjx'ciiii^ a matter of iiitcinal 1a\;it ion, iii whicli China I'ollmvs tlie s:mie la、v and practice as is allowed in the United States. Contrast this with the treatment of CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 7 Chinese merchants in this country. Altliough by express treaty stipu- lation tliey are in the United States to be " allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord," and are guarantied the treatment £ ' ac- corded to the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation," for the past eight years no such treatment has been extended to them. While the merchants of all other nations of the earth are permitted free and unobstructed entrance into and departure from the ports of the United States, the Chinese merchant has by the legislation of your Congress had thrown around him the most obstructive, embarrassing, and humiliat- ing restrictions. He is treated by the customs authorities with, irmch the same surveillance as is extended to vagrants or criminals ； and be- fore he is permitted to land lie is required to produce a certificate, the strict conditions of which make it difficult and expensive to comply with, and humiliating and objectionable to the man of honor and self- respect, it being necessary to set forth tlie amount and details of the business in which lie is and has been engaged, with a statement of his family history and occupation, and all these matters are subject to tlie examination and approval of the American cousul at the Chinese or foreign port whence lie sails. Only within the present montti two of the most respectable Chinese merchants of Hongkong arrived in tlie port of Sail Francisco, desiring to land temporarily and visit their customers in the various cities of the Paciflc States j but, because tliey did not bring with them from that for- eign port the certificate above described, whicli it was impossible for them to obtain, tliey were kept as prisoners on board the vessel upon whicli they arrived until it sailed on its return voyage, notwithstanding the collector of customs was satisfied they belonged to the exempt class entitled, under the treaty^ to the same free entrance as a British or other merchant, and tliey were driven back upon their long voyage across the Pacific Ocean ； a condition of tilings which your President four years ago recognized as contrary to the treaty and urged your Congress to rectify. (Senate Ex. Doc. 118， Forty-nintli Congress, first session.) Sucli， Mr. Secretary, are some of the contrasts in the observance and enforcement of treaty rights between the two nations. Can you wouder that the Imperial Government is growing restive and impatient under such dissimilarity of treatment, and is urging me to obtain from you some satisfactory explanation of tlie conduct of the American author- ities in tlie past and some assurance of the course to be pursued in the future? You will observe that the object had in view in the cited note of this legation addressed to your predecessor was to induce tlie Executive to recommend Congress to undo tlie wrong and hardships inflicted upon my countrymen by its legislation ； and in tlie subsequent note addressed to you this object was brought to your attention, and the hope was expressed that, with your earnest desire to deal justly and to " main- tain the public duty and the public honor/' you would find a speedy method of satisfying tlie reasonable expectations of the Imperial Gov- ernment. In view of the fact that one session of your Congress has passed and auotlier is already well advanced without any communica- tion from the President, and of your continued silence respecting my notes, I 謹 being reluctantly forced to tlie conclusion that you regard that method of adjustment as impracticable. It will make me happy to be informed that this conclusion is erroneous, and that your Congress can yet be induced to "maiiitain the public duty and tlie public lionor." 8 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. But if tliis, unfortunately, may not be, then I can see only one other proper solution, and that the one indicated in the fifth point of my pred- ecessor's note of July 8， 1889. The public law of all nations recognizes the right of China to resort to retaliation for these violated treaty guar- anties, and such a course applied to the American missionaries and niercliauts has been recomineuded to the Imperial Government by many of its statesmen ； but its long-maintained friendship for the United States, and its desire to observe a more humane and elevated standard of intercourse with tlie nations of the world, point to a better method of adjustment. Conscious that it has religiously kept faith with all its treaty pledges towards your country, my Government is persuaded that America will not be blind to its own obligations nor deaf to the appeals made to it on belialf of the Chinese subjects who have been so griev- ously injured in their treaty rights by tlie legislation of Congress. It is a principle of public law, recognized, I believe, by all interna- tional writers, that a treaty between two indei)eiideiit nations is a con- tract, and that the nation which fails to execute or violates it is re- sponsible to tlie other for all injuries sufi'ered by its subjects thereby, and that it can not escape responsibility because of the action or failure of action of any internal power or authority in its system of govern- meut. But I need not quote any foreign publicists on this subject, because your own country furnishes abundant authority to sustain this position. The great American law writer Wlieaton, whose wisdom and justice are recognized tlirougliout all countries, says: The King (or the President) can not compel the Chambers (or Congress), neither can he compel tlie courts ； bat the nation is not tlie less responsible for the breach of faith thus arising out of the discordant action of tlie international machinery of its constitution. (Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 359.) Citation has already been made of tlie declarations of the Solicitor of your own Department to the same effect in even strouger language. And it seems that the distinguislied statesmen who have preceded you in your great office have held the same just principle. I need only quote the words of Mr. Secretary Fish : The foreign nation whose rights are invaded thereby [by legislation of Congress] has no less cause of complaint and no less ri»lit to decline to recognize any internal legislation wbicli presumes to limit or curtail rights accorded by treaty. (AVhartou, section 138.) But the Supreme Court of your country, in the decision in whieli it sustained the act of 1888, has been very explicit in recognizing this principle. It declares that "a treaty * * * is in its nature a con- tract between nations," and that "it must be conceded tliat the act of 1888 is in contravention of ex]>rcss stipulations of the treaty of 1S(5S and of the supplemental treaty of 1880/' and, although the act of Con- ,2i ('、s is binding upon the internal authorities, that act does justify c()in])laiiit on tlie part of the other con t meting party. And this doc- trine is made more clear by tlie 】（"mie(L Aiiieri ('； m judges whose opin- ions are cited approvingly by the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Curtis says: The Hovwig'i whom and tho United States a treaty has been made has a ri^lit to (ixpt; (； t its stipulutioiiH to bo koj)t with scrupulous good faith. (2 Curtis, C. C, 456.) And again he says : The responsibility of the Government to a foreign nation for tho exercise of these y)ow«Ts fhy l« ^i si ,i t ion) * " " in to met, .-md jii.slilicd to t'lio foreign ruiiion uccordiii^ to thu ro(|iiircmonts ol" tho rules ol' public law. (19 Howard, 629.) CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 9 And the Supreme Court has held : A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the governments which are parties to it. If this fails, its infraction becomes the subject of inter- national negotiations and reclamations, so far us the injured party chooses to seek redress. (112 U. S. R., 598.) And further : If the country with which the treaty is made is dissatisfied with the action of the legislative department, it may present its complaint to the executive head of the government and take such, other measures as it may deem essential for the protec- tion of its interests. (124 U. S. R.， 194.) To the foregoing I must add the declarations of two of the present members of that court. Justice Miller says， as to reclamations grow- ing out of legislative violation of treaties : Questions of this class are international questions, and are to be settled between the foreign nations interested in the treaties and the political department of our Government. (1 Woolworth, 156.) And Justice Blatchforcl says : Congress legislates * * * subject to the responsibilities of this Government, in its national character, for anv breach, of its faith with foreign nations. (8 Blatcli- ford, 310.) My predecessor expressed Ms amazement that the Supreme Court should announce the doctrine that the act of Congress must be obeyed though it is in plain violation of the treaty, and that surprise has been shared by my Government ； but it is my duty to do justice to this high tribunal. I must express my profound obligations to it for making tlie farther declarations in its opinion given above, but especially for citing the decisions from which I have just quoted. These show that this au- gust body, while it confesses its obligation to enforce the will of Con- gress within the United States, recognizes a broader and higher obliga- tion and responsibility as resting upon the American Government ― au obligation which requires it to see that the stipulations of its treaties are " kept with scrupulous good faith," and a responsibility which de- mands that " any breach of its faith with foreign nations is to be met and justified * * * according to the requirements of the rules of public law." Hence, Mr. Secretary, I present this view of the question to you, with the utmost confidence in your readiness to accept whatever responsibilities have attached to your Government for the " breach of its faith " as the resulting act of the legislation of your Congress, sup- ported, as I am, in my demand, not only by the international authority of all nations, but by your own Department and by the highest tribunal and judges of your own nation. I have shown you how the legislation of your Congress, which is con- ceded by your Supreme Court to be in violation of the treaties, has im- paired or destroyed the rights and property interests of the three classes of Chinese laborers described, as well as of Chinese subjects entitled to free transit through the United States and of Chinese merchants ob- structed in their business and denied the privileges extended to those of other nations. I abstain for the present from presenting any formal estimate of damages and losses sustained by the above classes of sub- jects through the legislative infriiigeiiient of the treaties. I shall await your reply to this and the previous notes of this legation, in the hope that even yet a metliod may be found of undoing: the wrongful legisla- tion and restoring to their treaty rights the Chinese subjects now in, or entitled to come into, the United States. But, whatever may be the ulti- mate decision of your Government on this poiut, I am persuaded that 10 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. I have given you such, cogent reasons to support the expectation of the Imperial Government to be informed without further delay of tlie views and intentions of your Executive respecting the treaty obligations toward China, that you will favor me with an early communication on tlie subject. I improve, etc., Tsui Kwo Yin. No. 2. Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine. No. 1123.] Legation of the United States, Pelcing, July 25， 1890. ( Received September 22.) Sir : I have the honor to inclose a translation of a communication bearing date June 16， 1890， lately sent to me by the Tsung-li Yamen ； also a translation of another coinmunication bearing date June 17， 1890; also copies of my replies to these two communications. Tlie delay in forwarding these papers was caused by my absence from Peking. It will be seen that the first of these communications relates mainly to the act of October, 1888, being the Chinese exclusion act, and that it recites tliat substantially similar inquiries were made by the Chinese minister at Washington of yourself and of your predecessor. While it must be admitted that under the fourth article of the treaty of 1880 it is entirely competent for the yameii to address complaints to me touching any leg- islative act, nevertheless, under the circumstances, it seemed prudent for me not to take up the proposed discussion until I had presented the matter to you and received your instructions. I answered the yamen in that sense. The communication of June 17 is mostly directed against the lately proposed Chinese enumeration bill, and the San Fraucisco ordinance which has for its purpose to confine Chinese residents to certain designated localities. I liave replied to the yamen that ray information was that the enumeration bill had been laid on the table in tlie Senate, and that tlie ordinance mentioned would be tested in the courts before any action would be had under it. It seemed to 】ne unnecessary to discuss at this time the provisions of either measure. This conduct is in accordance with the treaty, which applies only to measures "as affected." I have, etc., Charles Denby. [Indlosure 1 in No. 1123 .—Translation . ] The T8ung-U-yamen to Mr. Denby, June 16, 1890. Your Excellkncy: Research reveals the fact that all the treaties entered into be- tween ( liina ;mkI tlie United States, beginning with that' of the twoiity-fomth Tno Kicni^ nsl I, w.-.st (-i n stvlc) ； tlicn that of tlio'ci^lith ILsiouTen^ (1858); th;it of tlio ni'vriitli Ticii-- Chit (ISfiS), ； md that of the sixth Kuang-hsii (1880), four in all, oi'ig- iiial'.'i on l he pail ol lii'' I nil.'d Sl:itrs. I'm it lu-i', I lie jtioposcd I rent v, the (Ir.'il't w lici i-of \v;ih jointly- (liscusscd ]>y us in tho year KiianjLj-lisii (1888), was also put for- ward 1>\ I la; I )c]t:u t niciil ol' Stntr under (lie i;isi iuliniiiistration, tlio original idea not coiniii- IVoni ( hin.'i. Xol w i t lisl andini; t his, his (ixccJlcncy, the fonuor rrcsident, set this treaty asido, and without inoiuonition put iu operation a new statute abso- CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 11 lute】y prohibiting the coming of Chinese laborers into the United States, a statute widely at variation with the Chinese- American treaty of the seventh. Tung Chit (1868)， and a Violation of the treaty of the sixth Kuang-lisii, wherein China authorized the restriction by the United States of the immigration of Chinese laborers. The fifth article of the treaty entered into between Cliina and the United States in the sev- enth year of Tung Chit (1868) speaks of the mutual advantage of the free migra- tion and emigration of their citizens and subjects, respectively, from the one coun- try to the other, for the purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents. The sixth article further says, * * * u Cliinese 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 tlie most ' favored nation/" Again, the treaty of Kuaug-lisii (1880) between China and the United States says that whenever the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect, the interests of that country, or to endau^er the good order 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 or suspension shall be reasonable. Under these circumstances, the ratification by liis excellency, the former President, ou the 26 th day of the eighth moon last year (western style, tlie 1st of October), of the statute enacted by Congress prohibiting immigration of Cliinese laborers is beyond belief. Further, this yainori had previously, viz, on the loth day of the eighth moon of that year (September 19), sent a dispatch to your excellency submitting- for your consider- ation three additional clauses to the new treaty. To this, however, your excellency has never replied. The Chinese minister to the United States also submitted these three clauses in a dispatch to tlie Department of State. He, too, received not a word in reply. The new treaty, however, was rejected and a new statute was enacted in place of it. This method of dealing does not seem to us to agree with the spirit vrliich animates the treaties of our two couutries, and fails to accord with tlie several de- cades of friendship betvreea us. Since the euactiai? of this new law Chinese going to and from the United States have all met with interference. His excellency Mr. Chang, former minister to the United States, first on the 25 th clay of the twelfth moon of the fourteenth Kuang-hsii (January 26, 1889), later on the 26th of the first moon of the tifteentli Kuaug-lisii (February 22, 1889)， wrote to the former Secretary of State on this subject. In reply to these dispatches he received an answer from the honorable Secretary, in which lie merely intimated that as the President was about to go out of office be certainiy would not ratify any legislation enacted in violation of treaty. He did not reply to any of the other important matters submitted to liiin. After Mr. Blame had entered on his duties as Secretary of State tlie former minis- ter, Mr. Chang, ou the 10th day of the sixth moon, fifteenth Kuang-lisii (July 7, 1889), wrote a dispatch making urgent inquiries for information, and demauding that the law enacted by Congress the preceding year, prohibiting Chinese laborers from entering the United States, be repealed. These communications were exceedingly explicit in their statemeut of the case. In reply, however, the Department merely stated that haste would be made in a careful consideration of the subject. As to the manlier in which, tliis consideration has been conducted, uo information lias as yet been given. This yanieii observes that the Chinese minister, in his three dispatches above referred to. lias, in the main, sub- stantiated liis position by quotation from the successive treaties between the United States and China. Now, by reference to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1881, pp. 173, 185， and 198; aud to tlie statutes of the United States, March, 1843， 5th chapter, p. 624; and to the Foreign Relations of the United States of 1870, p. 332; aud to the Congressional Record, 1868, 19th chapter, pp. 8451, 8452, 8453 ； aud to the message of President Hayes, March 1， 1879, to the Fort y-tiftb. Congress, vetoing a bill; and to the message to Congress of President Arthur, April 4, 1882 ― by reference to these various documents kept on record by the United States GoTernment, refer- ring to statutes and matters with which your excellency is well acquainted, it may be easily ascertained why the Department of State persistently refused to give def- inite answers. Sincerely interested, as your excellency is, in the relation of our countries, you probably are aware that the law uotv in operation, contrary to treaty stipulations, interferes with Chinese subjects in their efforts to gain a livelihood, as well as violates the several treaties themselves. Last year at the opening of Con- gress his excellency the President, in liis message to that body, stated that the failure to ratify and exchange the new treaty negotiated between China and the United States, and the legislation of the last session of Congress consequent thereto, had left some questions open, to the deliberation of which it was now his duty to request Congress to approacli witli justice and equity, etc. This yamen has not heard from your excellency whether or not during these months any such deliberatious have been entered iuto by the Congress of your coun- try. 12 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. His excellency Mr. Tsui, our present minister, lias frequently written to tlie Depart- ment on the subject, but receives no replies. We request, finally, that your excel- lency will clearly indicate to us what article of the treaty it is that your honorable Congress relied on in enacting the new law of last year. Should statutes be enacted without adherence to the treaties, then the Chinese residents in the United States must, in time to come, suffer varied and repeated hardships. This result we fear, can not be avoided. The Chinese liave gone to America because repeated treaties have authorized them to go and come at their pleasure, and to enjoy there the advan- tages of citizens of the most favored nation. For this reason the residents on the coasts of China have gone to the United Slates in large numbers to gain their sub- sistence. There they have accumulated considerable property. Now that suddenly their going to and. fro is prohibited, to whose charge shall be given their homes and property iu America? The new law enacted by Congress is totally at variance with the treaties, and we consider it a violation of the spirit wliicli prompted your conn- try in its repeated requests to China to execute treaties with it. It forms an entirely- new episode in the relations of the two countries, and, though there was a disagree- ment with. France in 1798, the instance is one which is seldom met with in. the history of the United States with other countries. Your excellency is thoroughly conversant with the treaties between China and tlie United States ； we therefore request you at once to write to the Department of State to secure the repeal of the laws in violation thereof. We hope, also, to receive an answer to this important matter. A necessary commuuication, etc. [Inclosure 2 in No. 1123.— Translation^ The Tsung-li Yamen to Mr. Deiiby. June 17， 1890. Your Excellency : It is customary to speak of the relations between China and the United States as characterized by continuous cordiality. The treaties which China has on various occasions entered into with the United States have all been an i mated with the intention to protect the interests of American citizens. The United States, however, because of discrimination against Chinese laborers, have repeatedly ouacted laws in violiition of treaty, and all having for their object the maltreatment ami iiijuiy of Chinese subjects. We have lately received from his excellency Mr. Tsui, minister to the United States, a commuuication, wherein he says that the Lower House of the United States Congress lias had under discussion recently the enacting of a vexatious law requiring the euumeration of the Chinese in the United States, in California ； moreover, a statute has been recently enacted driving out and expelling the Chinese from the larger cities. On reading this, very great was our indignation and grief. The second article of the supplementary treaty between China and the United States of the sixth Kuang-hsu (1880) says that Chinese merchants "and Chi- nese laborers who arc now in the United States shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exerap- tiuns which, are accorded to citizens aud subjects of the most favored nation." Article III says : "If Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, now either per- manently or temporarily residing in. the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, aud exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty." The vexatious law for the enumeration of the Chinese seems to be not only a contradiction of the u favored-nation " clause iu the successive treaties between China and t\w United States, but a violation of the Consti- tution on which your Government is built. In tho law for the driving out and expulsion of the Chinese and tlie limitation of their residence hereafter to a particular locality no inquiry has been made as to whether they had prop- erty or not. They are all alike to be forced into one narrow placo aud not allowed the usual privileges of residence. After sixty days those not driven out sb;tll be or- dered to ])rison. We do not know whether the Chinese now residing in the United Stat»\s are all those who in former times went thither under tlie treaty wliich your < vi'ni m' nt en ! I i fd iii \n 1 1 h ( 'h i n;i in oidcr to ;iul lioii/c t hcii- .U<)in,L;'. Their si rcn^tli, however, was availed ol* and tlioir labor used. Aftorw;ii(ls, us hooh as the railroad 1i;k1 pi (； reed tlirou^li t<» Cnliiornia, and wlien buaiiicss llourislicd, the virtues of the ( 'hiiKise wero no longer reiii(，"il)er"(l， and thoy worr, re^;irded as euoniics. At fiiHthoa- tility ； I toso, t lien t lioic wa^lHjf riling of houses, tlion tlioro wasoxpul.sion of (,'liiucse; now they aro to be forced to live in one lot uliiy and bo allowed 110 rosideuce olso where. CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 13 It seems that they are to be gathered together to inflict further injuries on them. This is a contradiction of those words of the treaty which say they may "go and come of their own free will aud accord/*' while the proposed imprisonment after sixty days is a nullification of that treaty clause whicli speaks of enjoying the advantages of the sub- jects of the "most favored nation." Should such acts as these originate with the citi- zens or subjects of another country, should they so insult and ill treat the Chinese labor- ers, the Government of your honored country would be in duty bound to u exert all its power to devise measures for their protection/' and thus fulfill its treaty obligation. Now, however, contrary to all our expectations, these oppressions and these insults come from the United States, whose relations with us it is customary to designate as cordial. We are humbly of opinion that in the law of nations reciprocity is con- sidered most important. Suppose that China should conduct herself toward Ameri- can citizens in a similar maimer, we ask whether the Congress of the United States would not reproach China with a violation of the treaty ？ And would your excel- lency sit still and make no inquiries of us? Change your point of observation. At this time China can not refrain from expressing her feelings, and it is just that she should do so. The whole truth is that this class of Chinese laborers, although living beyond the outer seas, are not the less the children of China, and she is unable to cast them from her breast. It is our duty, therefore, to communicate with your excel- lency and to express the hope that you will write to the Department of State to ab- rogate the laws requiring enumeration and forced restriction of residence. We hope for an early reply. We further wish that you would transmit to the Department of State a request to speedily reply to the dispatch of last year from his excellency Mr. Tsui, the present minister, sent duriug the second intercalary month, and that of the former minister, Mr. Chang, and thus show some concern for the important matter of the good relations of our countries. A necessary comniunication, etc. [Inclosure 3 in No. 1123.] Mr. Denby to the Tsung-li-yamen. No. 7.] Legation of the United States, Peking, My 26, 1890. Your Highness and Your Excellencies : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of June 16, 1890. I seize the earliest opportunity after my return to Peking to reply to the same. You set out in detail tlio dates of the treaties and make some observations on their origin. You proceed to comment on the act of Cougres of October, 1888， relating to the exclusion of the Chinese laborers, which act you severely criticise. You further state that I sent no reply to your communication of the 15th. day of the eighth moon of the fourteenth year of Kuang-lisii (September 20， 1887). I beg leave to say that I acknowledged the receipt of your communication. I forwarded it to my Govern ment. I have received no advices from my Government touching the three suggestions made. You further state that you have addressed, through your minister at Washington, the present Secretary of State and his predecessor on this subject and are without a reply. You cite various docuuients and Presidential messages. You then make some com- ments on the alleged injustice of tlie act of Congress of which, you complain, and you request that I take up this discussion with you, and that I clearly indicate to you what article in the treaty it is that Congress "relies on in enacting the new law of 1888." You proceed to detail the alleged hardships to which Chinese subjects will be subjected by the operation of the new statute, and you severely criticise the said statute. You request me, in conclusion, to write the Secretary of State to secure the repeal of the said law. In reply to tliis comrauuication, I have to say that I have sent to the Department of State a translation of your communication . I think that under the circumstances detailed by you it is best for me to await the instructions of my Government before taking up the discussion of the matters stated. I must therefore beg of you to await a more specific reply to your commimicatiou until I shall liave received tlie instruction of the honorable Secretary of State. I avail, eto. Charles Denby. 14 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. [Inclosure 4 in No. 1123.] Mr. Denby to the Tsung-li-yamen. No. 8.] Legation of the United States, Peking, July 26, 1890. Your Highness and Your Excellencies : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the comniuiiicatiou of your highness and your excellencies of June 17， 1890. I seize the earliest opportunity after my return to Peking to reply to it. You therein state that the United States "have repeatedly enacted laws in violation of treaty, and all having for their object the maltreatment and injury of Chinese sub- jects." Under the treaty of 1880 it is competent for the Government of China to bring the attention of the Government of the United States or that of the minister to Cbina to the consideration of any legislative measure which may be found to work hardships upon the subjects of China. As I understand this provision, it is applicable to laws that have been enacted by- Congress and have received the sanction of the Executive, or been passed over his veto in accordance with the Constitution, and that have become valid and are in force. A complaint made in the general addressed to newly proposed laws which are not in force would require mucli time for discussion, and such time might be uselessly expended. You state that you have been informed by your miaister at Washington that the Lower House of Congress lias had under discussion recently the enacting of a vexatious law requiring the enumeration of the Chinese in the United States. You have probably been informed by your minister before this time that the said bill failed in the Senate, was laid on the table, and will in all Imrnan probability not become a law. It is unnecessarj 7 to waste any time in the discussion of this measure. You refer, also, to the ordinance lately passed by the city of San Francisco. That city passed an ordinance by whicli the residence of Chinese subjects Avas restricted to certain designated localities. If this ordinance be antagonistic to the treaties, as your highness and your excellencies claim, tlien it will be set aside by the courts and held to be naught and void. Under our system of Government it is not com- petent for auy State or city to enact laws contrary to the provisions of any existing treaties. I have not learned that the Chinese consul or the Chinese residents of San Francisco are much alarmed at the passage of the ordinance in question. Until the courts shall have decided that the said ordinance is legal and binding, and some action that is prejudicial to the Chinese has been had thereunder, it would seem to be un- neecssary to discuss its provisions. I have sent to the Secretary of State a translation of your commuiiication, and I am sure that it will secure the attention that its importance warrants. I avail, etc., Charles Denby. No. 3. Mr. Tsui to Mr. Blaine, Chinese Legation, Washington, October 1， 1890. (Received October 1.) Sir: Under date of March 20 last I was impelled by an urgent sense of duty to send you a note of some length, citing the notes which my predecessor lisul {iddrosscd to the late Secretary of State and to your- self respecting the status of our treaty relations as alViM'ted by the action of the last Congress of your country, and giving some additional ic;isons w liy, in my opinion, it was th( k ini])crative duty of youi- G overn- im'iit to Jui nisli an early aud compreliensive I'eply to the several notes of this legation. II lias lillc (！ nw witli wonder that neitlier an acknowledgment of its r<'<'<'ij»l ihm' a reply tlicrclo lias up to tliis time been received. Kuow- in.i; how ('； nclull y :nid com l (M)iisly you observe all f lie requirements of (lil)loinatic iiitncoui sc, I liavo not attrihiitcd tliis lio^lcct to any per- s(/n;il (-lioic*' on your ]>art. I li:ive persuaded niysHf iluit your silence lias been l:iiiu' i'c<|iics1 in^ r<']"':i】 inp or rejection of this vexatious act. I j)oti the 26t}i of .hily, 181K). your excel lcncy replied to the effect that you had traiismitted a t^msl;it ion of tlie yaiin' ii'H coiiiiiiunication to the honorable Secretary oi m ;i t<- lor lii.s jtfi usal, hut it -would be uecessary to wait a reply from the Depart- CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 17 ment of State before sending a specific i*>ply. etc. Now, the ministers would observe that this matter has heen pending for over four inoutlis, aud if the honorable Secretary of State has at heart the friend]y relations of the two countries, lie certainly should not permit or be willing that this matter should be delayed, se«fc aside, and take no notice of it. The ministers would beg your excellency to again address the honor- able Secretary of State, and ascertain finally what action will be taken in tlie prem- ises and send them a specific reply and oblige. Cards with compliments, etc. [Inclosure 2 in No. 1181.】 Mr. Denby to the Tsung-U YamSn, Informal.] Legation of the United States, Peking, October 22, 1890. Your Excellencies : I have the honor to acknowledge tlie receipt of the coinmimi- cation of your excellencies of the 19th instant, wherein you state that repeated com- niunicatious had been sent to the Chinese minister in Washington, requesting- liiiu to ask the Honorable Secretary of State that the Chiuese exclusion act of October, 1888, be rejected or repealed. Your excellencies state tliat to these requests the Secretary of State has failed to send a reply. Your excellencies further state that you had req nested me to address the lionorable Secretary of State on the subject, aud that I informed your excellencies on tlie 26th of July lust that I had transmitted a translation of the yamen's communications to tlie lionorable Secretary of State, and that I awaited liis instructions. I have now to state that I have received no reply from the honorable Secretary of State on this subject. Your excellencies will permit ine, however, to re- mind you that under our form of govei'nmeut the making of laws, as well as the re- pealing or altering of laws already enacted, is intrusted to the two Houses of Congress. The President lias the power of vetoing any act of Congress, but his veto may be over- ridden by a two-tliirds vote of tlio liicinbers of the two Houses. It is not within the power of the Secretary of State to reject or repeal any law. Your excellencies ask me "to again address the honorable Secretary of State, aud ascertain finally what action will be taken in the premises, and send them (you) a specific reply." From my statement above made of the power of the lionorable Secretary of State, it is plain that it will l>e impossible for hi in to state in advance what, the action of Congress may be on any subject. I will take great pleasure iucominuuicating to the lionorable Secretary of State a translation of your present communication. In this connection I have the honor to inform your excellencies that the ordinance of tlie city of San Francisco which purported to exclude the Chinese residents oi" that city from a certain portion of the city, and of which you complained to me ki your com- ninnicatioii to me of June 17 last, has been decided by the United States courts to be null and void and of no effect. In my communication to you of July 26 last, I plainly intimated that this result would i'ollow an appeal to the courts. " I have, etc., Chaeles Denby. No. 6. Mr. Tsui to Mr. Blaine, Chinese Legation, Washington, December 4, 1890. (Keceived December 5.) Sir : From the several notes which have been addressed to your Department by this legation since the passage by the Congress of the United States of \he exclusion act of October 1， 1888, it is known to you that my Government lias earnestly desired that that honorable body should undo that act of hardship and treaty abrogation. I watched with interest the proceedings of the last session, and at its close it became 】ny unpleasant duty to inform my Government that it had adjourned without taking auy action looking to tlie repeal or modi- fication of the act of 1888. I am now in receipt of instructions from tlie Imperial Goveruineut S. Ex. 54 —— 2 18 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. directing me to convey to you the disappointment it lias experienced at the iutelligence connnunicated by me, and to express to you the hope that during the session which convened ou the 1st instant Congress may take such action as will assure tlie Imperial Government of the desire of that of tlie United States to maintaiu in fall force and vigor the treaties entered into between the two nations, and thus renew and streugthen the friendly relations which have so long existed. I hope that you will not interi>ret this note into any manifestation of impatience at the noni eceipt of the i'q)ly which was promised in your note to ine of October 6 last. You will， I am quite sure, under- stand the natural do sire of my Government (Nvliicli makes it my duty at tli is time to again address you) to relieve the many thousands of my coiiutryuieii from tlie sad situation in which tliey have been placed by the passage of tlie law cited. The records of the custom-house at San Francisco alone show that over 20,000 Chinese subjects who had left their temporary homes and business in the United States, bearing w i tli tliem, under the seal of the United States, certificates of tlieir rig] it to return, were, in violation of these certificates and of solenm treaty guaranties, absolutely and without notice excluded from the IJnited States by that law enforced, that those Chinese who were on the higli seas at the time it was passed were forbidden to land at San Francisco and were driven back to Gbina. The great pecu- niary loss which these Chinese subjects have sustained on account of being excluded from tlieir temporary homes and business in this country has been regarded by my Government as a serious hardship. Besides these, tlie law lias been very oppressive and unjust in its effects upon a still greater number of Chinese subjects. Under tlie provisions of tlie treaty of 1880, the Chinese laborers then in the United States were guarantied the right "to go and come of tbeir own free will and accord," but the act of 1888 nullifies this stipulation, and the Chinese laborers are therefore denied the privilege of a visit to their native land, or it must, be made at tlie sacrilice of all tlieir business interests in this country. In view of the injustice and loss wliicli has been and still is being inflicted by tlie operations of this law, my Government lias felt it nec- essary that I should again make kuown to you its earnest desire that soinetliiug should be doue to alleviate the injuries being suH'ered on ac- count of its passage. I nved hardly add that this representation is not 】na(le out of any disposition to aggravate the present unsatisfactory condition of our relations, but with the earnest hope that it may lead to some settle- ment which will cement our old friendship aud create new relations of harmony and freer commercial intercourse. I improve the opportunity, etc., Tsui Kwo Yin. No. 7. • Mr. Tsui to Mr. BJaine. Oiiinf^e Legation, Washi))f/t(n(, March 2'、 l^'JLK ( Received March 23.) Sin ： T linvo to write to you now n i ,s])cctin,u' ； i matter about whieli it is not plcMsimt tor me t<» I nml)lo, \oii. inid wliicli L would not tlo if my duty lo my Gu\ ei iinieiit did not conipcl me. CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 19 As you know very well, the minister who represented the Imperial Chinese Government before me sent you and Secretary Bayard long notes about the violation of the treaties by the American Congress, and, no replies having been sent, I also, instructed to do so by my Government, have written you more than once on the subject. It has made me very sorry to have been the minister of uiy country in Wash- ington so long without being able to obtain a. reply to these notes about a matter in which China is so much interested. You will not forget that I liave frequently taken occasion in uiy visits to you at the Department to speak to you about tins subject, and that 工 have been promised by you a reply. I have written of this promise to my Grovermnent, and you will not be surprised when I say that it can not understand why the promised reply on so important a subject is not sent. Before my 】ate visit to Cuba I spoke to you about it， and again when I called on you at the Department after ray return, and on both occasions you assured uie that an answer should be sent very soon. I would not trouble you now, but I have very lately received urgent inquiries from the tsung-li yartieii and from the Viceroy Li Hung Chang, instructing me to again press for an answer to those notes of the legation. I beg, therefore, that you will do me the favor to send me a note about this matter very soon. I am more anxious than ever to know what you tliink about this mat- ter, because I liear that more bills are proposed in tbe American Con- gress wbicli, if they are favorably voted, will make still farther viola- tions of the treaties. Thus it seems to me Unit while tlie Congress is so anxious to enact laws against the Chinese, it does not consider how much it disregards the observation of the treaty stipulations 5 but this is not what my Government expects of the United States Government. Accept, etc., - Tsui Kwo Yin. No. 8. Mr. Tsui to Mr. Blaine. Chinese Legation, Washington^ April 12, 1892. (Keceivecl April 12.J Sie : In yonr absence from the Department on yesterday I called upon Mr. Wharton, the Assistant Secretary of State, and communi- cated to him the substance of a telegram which I received on the day before from the tsung-li yamen, comrnuuieating that it had received information of the passage of a bill by the House of liepreseutatives of the United States prohibiting the future coming of Chinese to the United States, and I was directed to bring the matter to your atten- tion, in view of the fact that the said bill was understood by the tsung-li yamen to be in violation of our treaty stipulations. In answer to my inquiry as to what course I should adopt in view of this instruction, Mr. Wharton stated that if I should send a note to the Department settiilg forth the views of my Goveruinent the Department would take pleasure in transmitting' a copy of it to the Committee ou Foreign Relations of tbe Senate, which I understood from him liad the bill now under its consideration. I beg, tlierefore, to direct your at- tention to the fact that the said bill violates every single one of the articles of the treaty which was neg otiated in 1880 by the Commission - S. Ex. 2 —— 32 20 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. ers wlio were sent out from your Government to China for the express purpose of agreeing with tlie Chinese Government upon such a treaty as the Government and people of the United States wanted, by which to regulate the immigration of the people of China to the United States. The record of the liegotiatioiKs which took place in 1 880 will show that the American Commissioners laid before the Oliiiiese Government the terms of the treaty which tliey desired aod which they said would prove satisfactory to their people. In answer to their request tlie Chinese Government made that treaty, and have since that time sought in all ways within its power to have this and all other treaty stipulations be- tween the two countries faithfully executed so far as the Chinese Gov- ernment is concerned. My Government can not, therefore, understand why a bill should now be introduced into Congress which violates out- right all the provisions of that treaty, which was raade at the express request of the United States. The bill about which 1 now write you not only violates Article 1 of treaty of 1880 iu making- absolute the prohibition of the coining" of Chi- nese laborers to the United States, but contains legislation which is in violation of the last clause of the ai ticle, which says that the legislation shall not be of such a character as to subject the laborers to personal maltreatment or abuse. It violates Article 2 in that it prohibits the coming to the United States of teachers, students, mei cluiuts. or Chinese subjects from curi- osity or travel, as it also excludes all their body and household serv- ants. The bill further prohibits the return of Chinese laborers who are now in the United States, and who， according' to tlie treaty, were to be "allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord." It violates Article 3 in that it does not grant to Chinese subjects in the United States "the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemp- tions" as are "enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the 】nost favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.' 1 The bill, besides subjecting the Chinese in the United States to various annoyances and penalties, also requires that they shall take out a certificate of resi- dence, whicli certificate is required to contain a pliotograpliic copy of the applicant, together with other restrictions and penalties, whicb, as I am informed, is not required by the citizens or subjects of any other foreign country now living in the United States. I beg that you will, Mr. Secretary, exert your influence with the com- mittee before wliom I learn from Mr. Wharton the bill is now being considered, believing that you have the same interest and desire as the Chinese Govenmient to preserve inviolate the solemn treaty stipula- tions Avhicli have been made between the two governments. I send to you, with this note, an original statement signed by Mr. Phelps, the collector of customs of San Francisco, and also a, copy of 11"' same, whicli shows that since the restriction act of 1882 went into effect the number of departures of Chinese 1 from the port of Ban Fran- cisco have exceeded tlie arrivals by 32,000 j)orsoiis, uiiicli statement would seem to indicate there is no occasion for alarm as to the increase of ( 'liiix'sc i mini ^ration into the United Sl;it(\s. A iter you Lave com- ]>;>rc(l the original stnt ciiicnt w itli tlie copy, in order to be satisfied of its authenticity, I ask that you will returu tlie original to nie. Accept^ sir, etc., Tsui Kwo Yin, CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 21 Custom-House, Collector's Office, San Francisco, Cal., March SO, 1892. Arrival a and departures of Chinese at the port of San Francisco from date of the restrie- t'ton acf, August 5, 1882, to December 31, 1891. Arrivals. Departures. From August 5， 1882, to December 31— 18, 703 6, 7] 4 11,572 17. 981 1.017 2, 725 2, 123 1-1 卜 OS — «C C3 卜 1886 1891 CO, 835 92， 925 Excess of departures I 32, 090 The above is a correct statement, taken from the records of this custom-house. T. G. Phelps, Collector. No. 9. Mr. Tsui to Mr. Blaine. Chinese Legation, Washington, April 21, 1892. (Received April 21.) Sm : On the 12tli instant I had the honor, under the instructions of the Imperial Government at Peking, to submit to you its views respect- 、 ing the legislation now pending in the Con<*T^ss of the United States as to the conuiig of Chinese to the United States. Since the date ot that note I have received a second cablegram from the Tsung-li Yamen, in wliicli I am instructed by it to urge upon you the importance of both Governments of the preservation of our existing treaties, which the pending' legislation threatens to destroy. I can only repeat my earnest desire that you will do whatever you can to prevent auy violation of these treaties by the Congress of the United States. Accept, sir, etc., Tsui Kwo Yin. ]STo. 10. Mr. Tsui to Mr. Blaine. Chinese Legation, Washington, May 5, 1892. (Received May 5.) Sir : I learn from the reports of the proceedings of the Congress that the bill concerning the Chinese, about which I have written and talked with you, has finally been passed by that high body, and I 讓 told that it only remains for it to secure the name of bis excellency the Presi- dent to become a law of this couotr/. I have already protested to you against it as a v olation of tlie treaty of 1880， and I now want to make use of the privilege which is secured to me by Article 4 of that treaty, to bring th(3 matter to your notice iu the most urgent manner that I 22 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. can, and ask you to lay what I have to say before his excellency the President before he shall act upon the bil】 which has just passed the honorable Congress. In the notes which my predecessor and I have some time ago sent to your Department we have shown how the Scott bill, passed by the Congress of 1888, was a clear violation of the treaty of 1880. Your own silence on the subject must be understood to be a recogDition that what we have charged is true. In fact, your own Supreme Court has ad- mitted that. Now, the Congress, in the bill which has just been voted, has a provision that this bad law shall be kept in force. But this bill does even worse injury than tlie Scott law. In its sec- tion 5 it denies to Chinese the riglit of bail iu habeas corpus suits. One of the honorable Senators, wlio, I have heard, is a tine lawyer, stated in the Senate that this section "was inconsistent with one of the funda- mental principals of justice that exists in China, America, and every- where where God reigns." You must agree with me, Mr. Secretary, that it violates sections 2 and 3 of the treaty of 1880. Section 6 of the bill makes it neeiir to me that it would be prudent to discuss the ^ciHM-jil rchit ions of the two couutrit's or to surest remedies that mi^iit i<'Mio\'( i tli,' uiitortunate friction now existing. Your own wis- dom ;iik1 c\|K'i i('i!cc will ^iiw'-st a ^riKM'al treat inent of the questions involved, slioiild sucli ii policy be desired by you. 1 have, etc., Charles Denby. CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 27 [Inclosure 1 in No. 1569.] The T»ung-li Yamin to Mr. D&nby, Peking, August 5, 1892. Upon the 4th of July last the prince and ministers liad the honor to receive a com- muuication from the minister of the United States wherein he stated that he had received a copy of the new exclusion act against Chinese laborers, and inclosing in English ― • First. A circular of the Secretary of the Treasury, informing collectors of customs of the passage and approval of the above-mentioned act. Second. A copy of the above mentioned act, approved May 5, 1892. Third. A copy of the act of Congress approved May 6, 1882. Fourth. A copy of the act of Congress approved July 4， 1884. Fifth. A copy of the act of Congress approved October 1， 1888. The minister of the United States stated that these acts covered all the legislation of Congress on Chinese exclusion. The priuce and ministers would observe that it appears that the exclusion of Chi- nese laborers for a limited period had its origin in the 6th year of Knang Hsii, tenth moon, 15tli day, November 17, 1880, by a supplementary treaty concluded between China and the United States. Afterwards, in 1882, the first exclusion act was adopted, which was very severe in its terms. In 1884 this act was revised and amended .and it may be said that noth- ing was left to make it as strong as possible ； still it was not clearly expressed as an abrogation of the treaty. The law of October 1， 1888, was a complete discarding of the friendly relations that have existed between China and the United States for several tens of years. The yam^n and the Chinese minister to the United States have repeatedly ad- dressed communications discussing the question upon the basis of the treaties, but the minister of the United States and the honorable Secretary of State has never sent anything of a decisive nature in reply. The new act approved May 5 contains nine articles and continues in force, for a period of ten years, the law of 1884 on expiring of same ( ？). The prince and minis- ters, having duly perused the said act, feel it incumbent to explain to the minister of the United States their views regarding same. Article n of the new act reads as follows : "That any Chinese person or person of Chinese descent, when convicted and ad- judged under any of said laws to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States, "shall be removed from the United States to China, unless he or they shall make it appear to the justice, judge, or commissioner "before whom he or tliey are tried that he or they are subjects or citizens of some other country, in which case he or they shall be removed from the United States to sueli country : Provided, That in any case where such other country of which such Chinese person shall claim to be a citizen or subject shall demand any tax as a condition of the removal of such person to that country, lie or she shall be removed to China." The yamen does not know whether the term Chinese citizen or subject refers en- tirely to the laboring classes resident in tlie United States, or includes the exempt classes, as teachers, students, merchants, or those traveling from curiosity. By the second article of the supplemental treaty between the tjnited States and China (e Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers, students, merchants, or from curiosity, together with their body and household servants, and Chinese laborers who are now in the United States, shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions whicli are accorded to citizens and subjects of the most favored nation." Section 3 of tlie act of 1884 is clear and explicit. It reads as follows : "That (tlie two foregoing sections) shall not apply to Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the 17th day of November, 188 &， or who shall have come into the same be- fore the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of the act." There is still further no necessity of discussing the question of Chinese merchants and others who are exempt and not included in the exclusion act. By the act of May 5, 1892, the language used is Chinese citizen or subject, and no distinction of class is made. Again it is stated "under any of said laws to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States." Does the expression " un- der any of said laws" refer to the treaties or laws concluded by the two countries ？ Again, by the third section of the new act, it reads : u That any Chinese person, or persons of Chinese descent, arrested under the pro- vision of this act, or the acts hereby extended, shall be adjudged to be unlawfully within the United States unless sucli person shall establish, by affirmative proof to the satisfiiction of such justice, judge, or coinuiissioner, his lawful right to remain in the United States." 28 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. The yamen would observe that it was originally under the provisions of the T?ur- lingaine treaty of 1868 that Chinese laborers migrated to the United States. If affirmative proof is asked for this treaty should be taken, as it is certainly real affirmative proof. Sections n and in of the supplemental treaty of 1880 may also be cited as includ- ing affirmative proof. The United States Government at present disregards the treaties, a*id is moving with force to arrest Chinese subjects. Such action the prince and ministers con- sider as appearing to be greatly at variance with the Constitution of the United States. Section iv refers to imprisonment at hard labor. The prince and ministers would inquire whether the laboring classes of other countries, who go to the United States, are treated in such a harsh and tyrannical manner. Can it be said that they enjoyed the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation? Section v reads : " 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." It appears that there is a rule or law in the United States which admits of the citi- zens and subjects of foreign powers, resident in the United States, when an action at law has been instituted against them before the courts to apply and obtain bail pending the trial of the case. If the granting of bail is to be denied Chinamen awaiting trial, then where will their dwelling places be? Besides it is certainly the case that judges or justices can not take up [every] case on their arrival in court. In a word the true and honest procedure would be to still conform to the rule to grant bail pending trial. Section vi of the new law reads as follows : "And it shall be the duty of all Chinese laborers within the limits of the United States at the time of the passage of this act, and who are entitled to remain in the United States, to apply to the collectors of internal revenue of their respective dis- tricts, within one year after the passage of this act, for a certificate of residence, and any Chinese laborer within the limits of the United States who shall neglect, fail, or refuse to comply with the provisions of this act, or who, after one year from the passage thereof, shall be found within the jurisdiction of the United States without such certificate of residence shall be deemed and adjudged to be unlawfully within the United States, and may be arrested by any United States customs official, col- lector of internal revenue or his deputies, United States marshal or his deputies, and taken before a United States judge, whose duty it shall be to order that he be de- ported from the United States, as hereinbefore provided, unless he shall establish clearly to the satisfaction of sucli judge that by reason of accident, sickness, or other unavoidable cause, he has been unable to procure his certificate, and to the satisfaction of the court, and by at least one credible white witness, that he was a resident of the United States at the time of the passage of this act; and if upon the hearing it shall appear that he is so entitled to a certificate it shall be granted upon his paying the cost. Should it appear that said Chinaman had procured a certificate which has been lost or destroyed he shall be detained and jrulgment suspended a reasonable time to enable him to procure a duplicate from the officer granting it, and in such cases the cost of such arrest and trial shall be in the discretion of the court. And any Chinese person other than a Chinese laborer, having a right to be and re- m:iining in the United States, desiring such certificate as evidence of such right may apply for and receive the same without charge." The yamen would observe that Chinese laborers, resident in the United States, are scattered about in cities and towns where China is not represented by consular of- ficers. Among this class of laborers there are some who do not speak or read Eng- lish, and if they must provide certificates within the limited period of one year, and, on a failure to do so they will be arrested and brouulit before the courts for puniHhment, it goes without saying that they will become involved into a great deal of trouble, :move new act, which contains nine sectionH, tbe yam^n have ('x:uiiiTM',(l the tr(iati< i H as well as lln- cases th:it 】i:ive transpired, iiml tlie prince and niiiiist;i il oil ;i])j»lication lor u writ of habeas corpus. I do not know where per- Hons who sikmI out a 、vrit of habeas corpus would stay befort; trial. I suppose in practice, it' tb (； y could not remain alx>ard the shi]> which transported tliom to the I nitcd States, some ot her ]»l;ice would be provided by the authorities. I ii "'hat I h;i、.t, writ "'ii I ha\c t rcjitcd t'lle questions involved as questions oi' law. I I docs not conic, \\ ithin the piirvimv of 1 lie (li])lomati (- officer to discuss the intrinsic iiK-i it n or 山' iiirriN of the laws of his country. I beg to remark, however, th.it if tlie treaty of lsss had been approved by the Goveniment of China the questions now niootod would not ！ ia\ <• arism. ( 'hina :it tliat time seemed to fear that if that I if-ai \- \\fi ； i])jn()\'c(l similar tn':il"'s would lia\e to ho conceded to other powers. •SLe j>r<-l'i r-c<| tlnit her proplc .should )>e ])icvent(Ml froui going to the United States by an ucl oi Con^i »;ss whicli she nii^ht ;irtinwit of State, rciicwiii^ tlie protests and objections to the leg- islation, insisting tluit tlie treaties between tlie ^ovenniieiits should be pi < i \ < (1. him] ;i>k<'d tlir Scci ctaiy ol'Stntc to l;iy before the President of 1 lie I ' nilcd Statos my most urgent protests for his considei at ion be- l<»i <• he should net ii]x>ii o]- c liis ； 1 1 »])ioval t<> the bill; 1 i esi)c'cti'ully • iclvi you to said note i'<>v my views upon the effect of such legislation CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 33 and for a brief statement of the hardships imposed upon mj country- men in the United States by its unjust and personal provisions, which apply to them alone as a class of people, most of whom are legitimate residents of the United States and entitled to the same protection, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as other residents therein of the most favored nations. But my protest, if considered by the Presi- dent at all, was disregarded, and on May 5, 1892, the bill received his approval and became a law. Subsequently to tlie approval of the act another note was sent to the Department, in which I again expressed my views upon this impor- tant question. The above is a review of the correspondence between the Secretary of State and inyself upon the subject now under consideration up to this date, and it is scarcely necessary to remark that the same is de- cidedly one-sided. I regret most sincerely that I am compelled to say, in a most friendly way, that the proceedings which led to this legislation and the laws enacted in pursuance thereof were not required by any existing emer- gency that had arisen between the two nations, and the harshness of the provisions of such laws and the admitted violation of the existing treaties between the governments were unjustifiable, and the course of Congress in this respect can not be justified by any tiling to be found in the status of China and the Uiiited States toward each other at the time. The important observation may be made here that the haste in which bills relating to the exclusion of Chinese are rushed through Congress presents a most deplorable aspect of the question now under discussion. The act of October 1, 1888, known as the Scott law wils, I believe, passed without reference to committee, without debate, and without any sort of consideration whatever. At the last session of Congress each House hastily passed bills which crossed each other in the proceedings, and out of which the act approved May 5, 1892, was finally agreed upon in conference and enacted into a law. The Geary bill, which contained most obnoxious provisions, in connection with, which there was a minority report in the House, was stricken out in tlie Senate and the Dolph bill substituted for it and passed, upon whieli a conference committee was appointed, and the result of their deliberations was the act approved May 5， 1892， as above stated. In section 13 of the Geary bill, as it passed the House, will be found the following language: Section 13. That immediately after the passage of this act the Secretary of the Treasury shall make such rules and regulations and prescribe the necessary forms to enable the Internal-Revenue Department of the Government to issue the certifi- cates required hereby. Such certificates may be issued by the deputy commissioner of internal revenue nearest the place where such Chinese resides. The certificates shall contain a true photographic copy of the applicant, together with his name, age, local resideDce, and occupation, and a duplicate of the same shall be filed in the office of the coiiimissioner of internal revenue of the district within which such Chinaman makes application. The section of the act approved by the President May 5， 1892, is a modified one, and reads as follows : Section 7. That immediately after the passage of this act the Secretary of the Treasury shall make such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the efficient execution of this act, and shall prescribe the necessary forms and furnisli the neces- sary blanks to enable the collectors of internal revenue to issue the certificates required hereby, and make such provisions that certificates may be procured in localities convenient to the applicants. Such certificates shall be issued without S. Ex, 54 —— 3 34 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. charge to the applicant and shall contain the name. age. local residence, aud occu- pation of the applicant, and such other description of the applicant as shall be pre- scribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and a duplicate thereof shall be filed in the office of the collector of internal revenue for the district within which such Chiuanian makes his application. It is conceded that the Imperial Government has not encouraged the emigration of its people from China to the United States, but, on the contrary, in the negotiations between the countries on the subject it has, in the most friendly manner, yielded to the suspension of emigra- tion, and more friendly treatment was anticipated, therefore, than has been manifested by Congress in the enactment of laws prohibiting the coming of Chinese into the United States. It was admitted in the debate at the last session of Congress tliat the passage of the Scott law in 1888 was a violation of the treaty stipulations between the two countries, and also that the passage of the act of May 5, 1892， was a second aud more aggravated violation of the same. For a proper characterization of the legislation by eminent statesmen you are respectfully referred to the debates found in the Congressional Record, first session. From these debates it will be seen that some of the most prominent members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Re- lations doubted the necessity of any legislation whatever in the last session of Congress and were of the opinion that the provisions of the act of 1888 were extended to 1894. I will also add that it was disclosed by these debates that the census shows a decrease in the number of Chinese in the State of California and in the United States, and there was, therefore, no actual reason or necessity for the passage of a law containing additional precautions and restraints against the coming of my countrymen into the United States. I might with propriety protract this communication by placing before you in detail the numerous hardships that will be entailed upon my people iu the United States if the law is allowed to remain unchanged and if the rules and regulations prescribed by the Treasury Depart- ment are sustained and enforced ； but these matters are apparent, aud will be fully understood by a casual reference to them. The provisions of the act of May 5， 1892, I am informed, contravene the Constitution of the United States ； it is admitted they violate the treaties between China and the United States. Grave questions as to the constitutionality of the act will arise, therefore, for consideration, but inasmuch as these are questions to be presented to another and coordinate branch of your Governmeut I shall not discuss them in this coinniuDication, and this reference is made to the subject for the pur- pose of leading up to the presentation of au important departure iu the legislation of the Congress of tlie United States. This departure is found in section 6 of the act. The crime defined in this section and tlx- [)unishment prescribed are plainly ex post facto^ notwithstanding tli,' law lias been ingeniously lVamed with the intention of avoiding its repugnance to the Constitution. But I desire to direct attention more csp(M-ially to the fact that the Congress has prescribed as a punishment lor tli<' lioncoinpliaiKM' witii thv law what is equivalent to banishment IVoin tii(， United States; and 1 wisli to ('"""msize the fact that tiiis piiiiisliniont is applicable only to my countrymen. It was surprising to tlie Ini])crial (Tovci nineiit to find (Mi^ral'ted in the law of the United St;iic> ； m.v sucli |)cn;ilty, <'s))ccially so when it h;\s l)e('n proclaimed t lnoii^liout the woi Id r.')r o\ rr one lmndi c was ； in asylum ior tli,' pcojtlc of ； ill the nations of the earth. CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 35 In ray surprise, I uaturally exclaim, is this a step backward from prog- ress, civilization, freedom, and liberty ? I can not find words to ex- press my regret or the regret of the Imperial Government at the en- actment of such a law ; which is applied solely and personally to the Ohiuese, a large majority of whom are unquestionably lawfully within the United States, engaged iu the legitimate pursuits of life and en- titled to the protection of the Constitution and laws, instead of the imposition of such pimishment as it is attempted to inflict upon them by tlie last CoDgress; and the vsurprise must be greatly enhanced wlien it is considered that such obnoxious aud imeiilightened punisb- ment is an iinwelcome salute from one friendly and favored nation to au other, wLich has at all times and uucler all circunistances made amity, honesty of intentions and purposes, and the sacred ]>rest»r va tion of its treaty stipulations the chief object iu its relations with the United States Government, For these reasons, and others heretofore adduced, the statute of 1802 is a violation of every principle of justice, equity, reason, and fair dealing between two friendly powers, aud its entbrce- ment should not only be arrested, but tbe law itself should be sum- marily repealed or so altered as to assure my countrymen of the full protection of their rights and immunities, in the same measure that these privileges are secured to the people of other favored nations who are in any maimer residing within the boundaries of the United States. Id accordance with what has already been stated, I would most re- spectfully suggest that the two nations might be relieved of the pend- ing ombarassments which are the immediate result of tbe legislation so frequently referred to in this note by a repeal of the objectionable provisions of the act of May 5, 1892, or such alteration of the same as 、vil】 protect my coiiutrymeu in their vested personal and property rights in the United States, so that they may coutinue to remain in said country free from the threatened difficulties, wrongs, aiul the depriva- tion of such rights and privileges. In consideration, therefore, of tbe past friendship between the respec- tive nations and in the hope of preserving the same and uniting tbeui more firmly therein, I again communicate to you the respectful request of the Imperial Government tliat the matters wliich form the basis of this and my former notes niay receive your early attention, and tliat the views and intentions of your Government may be elicited and uiiidc known to me in an "ample and formal maimer." I again renew, etc., Tsui Kwo Yo. Ko. 16. Mr. Tsui to Mr. Foster. Chinese Legation, Washiinjton, Nov. 11, 1892. (Received November 12.) Sm : I have the honor to transmit herewith for your consideration, and for the consideration of his excellency the President of tlie United States, a communication of the foreign office at Peking, and addressed to Hon. Charles Den by, United States minister, in reply to a note from him dated July 4, 1892, inclosing for the information of the Imperial Government a co])y of the act of Congress approved May 5, 1892. and former acts, inoliibiting- tlie coming of the Chiuese into tlie Uuited S. Ex. 2 —— 33 36 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. States ； also a translation into the Chinese language of the circular letter issued by the Secretary of the Treasury to the collectors of cus- toms in the United States. The drastic provisions of the act of Congress of May last are reviewed by the foreign office in this note to Minister Denby and accompanied with the request that such provisions maybe explained and construed, especially in the many particulars referred to therein. It will be observed that Minister Denby is also requested to lay the matter mentioued in the note before the President of the United States, with a prayer that his excellency will cause the late act to be recon- sidered by the Congress of the United States, to 1;he end that due re- gard may be paid to the law of nations and to the friendly intercourse between China aud the United States. I most respectfully ask your careful consideration of the commuui- cation inclosed, and request that an answer may be made to all tlie inquiries presented by tlie foreign office. And I hope I may be par- doned for asking for a response to my note of recent date, as well as to the former notes of myself and my predecessor. Accept, etc" Tsui Kwo Yin. [Inclosure.] Iranslation of reply of foreign office in Peking to Mr. Denby, the United States minister. Sir: We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note, dated July 4, 1892， informing us of your having received from your Government copy of a new act prohibiting the coming of Chinese laborers into the United States, and transmitting for our information a Chinese translation of the circular letter issued by the Secre- tary of tlie Treasury to the collectors of customs in the United States, accompanied by the original in English, which contains (1) the new act of May 5， 1892; (2) the act of May 6, 1882; (3) the amendatory act of July 5, 1884， and (4) the act of October 1， 1888. Legislative measures restricting the immigration of Chinese laborers into the United States received tlieir first sanction from the treaty concluded between China and the United States on the 17th of November, 1880. Subsequently an act was passed by your Congress in 1882 restricting and limiting the immigration of Chinese laborers/ tlie provisions of which are very strict and oppressive. In 1884 your legis- lators passed an act amendatory to the act of 1882, exercising their power and using their discretion to the fullest extent ； still they did not go so far as to openly violate treaty stipulations. But at last, on October 1， 1888, an act was passed regardless of the firm and cordial friendship between the two countries which had existed for decades of years. We and our ministers at Washington have repeatedly sent in our protests in ac- cordance with the treaty stipulations, but iiave received no reply from you or the State Department. Furthermore, a new act, consisting of nine sections, was passed and approved May 5 last, continuing the provisions of tho amendatory act of 1884 for a period of ten years from its passage. This being the case, we have no alterna- tive but to call your attention to the following objections : Section 2 of the new act says: "That any Chinese person or person of Chinese descent, when convicted and ； Kljud^fMl under any of said laws to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in tlie United States, shall be removed from the United States to China, unless bo or they shall make it appear to the justice, judge, or commissioner before whom he or they are tried that be or they are subjects or citizens of some other country, in which cas (； he or they shall bo removed from the United States to such country : Provided, Tli at in ;my cane 、vh<'r", ,such other country of which such Chinese person shall claim to be a citizen or subject shall doinand any tax as a condition of the removal of such person to that country, be or she shall be removed to China." Docs the clause "'Chi- ！ i'' 、（- |>' '卜 （'ii ''I |m ixiii i>\ ( 'lii !m >c (lcsccjit iiH'iitioiKMl in t his w'rlioii ap])]y only to ( 'hincsr ];i l)orcis residing in tlie United States, or to the exempt class also, such as tcncliciH, iidcutH, tik i clianls, or jicrHons visiting the United States from curiosity ？ "W" should l»c to h;i\ c some explanation regarding it. Article 2 of the, tn-:ity of Novcml)or 17, 1880, provides that' a Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to tlio Uuitod States as teachers, students, or merchants, or from CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 37 curiosity, together with their body ar.d household servants, and Chinese laborers who are now in the United States, shall be allowed, to go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens aud subjects of the most favored na- tion." Section 3 of the amendatory act of 1884 provides "that the two foregoing sections shall not apply to Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the 17th day of November, 1880， or who shall have come into the same before tlie expiration of ninety- days next after the passage of the act to which this act is amendatory. " Thus it is clear that the first two sections of the said act can, under no circumstances, be ap- plicable to Chinese merchants and others who belong to the exempt class. Now, the new act of May 5 last refers generally to Chinese persons without classifying them. Does the clause " to be or remain in the United States" mean that it is a law made and agreed to by "both the nations, by which a Chinese person is to be adjudged lawfully or unlawfully to be or remain in the United States f Section 3 of the new act says : " That any Chinese person or person of Chinese de- scent arrested under the provisions of this act or the nets hereby extended shall be adjudged to be uulawfiilly within the United States, unless such person shall es- tablish by affirmative proof, to the satisfaction of sucli justice, judge, or commis- sioner, his lawful right to remain in the United States." We hold that by the Bmiingame treaty of 1868 the right of Chinese laborers to emigrate to the United States is secured and provided for; also by articles 2 and 3 of the treaty of 1880. What more affirmative proof can your Government ask for? Now, this arbitrary assumption of power by your Governmeut in causing the arrest and punishment of Chinese subjects without regard to the binding force of treaty stipulations appears to be in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Section 4 of the same act provides for the punishment of Chinese persons, when convicted of being unlawfully in the United States, with imprisonment at hard labor. Let us ask whether the subjects of other nations wlio are laborers in the United States receive the same treatment. How can you reconcile your Govern- ment's action iu the matter with that clause in the treaty which provides that to Chinese subjects, shall be accorded the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemp- tions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation? Section 5 of the same act has the following provision : "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." According to the practice of your courts, defendants in bailable cases, though they are subjects of other nations, are entitled to the privilege of being re- leased ou bail. If Chinese subjects are refused bail, where siiall they be lodged ？ In ordinary proceedings it is impossible for any judge to take np and hear a case as soon as it is brought before him and determine it promptly. It is therefore hoped that the privilege of being allowed to give bail hitherto enjoyed by the Chinese sub- jects may be coutinued. Section 6 of the said act provides : " That it shall be the duty of all Chinese labor- ers within the limits of the United States at the time of the passage of this act, and who are entitled to remain in the United States, to apply to the collector of internal revenue of their respective districts, within one year after the passage of this act, for a certificate of residence, and any Chinese laborer within the limits of the United States who shall neglect, fail, or refuse to comply with the provisions of this act, or who, after one year from the passage hereof, shall be found within the jurisdiction of the Uuitecl States without such certificate of residence, shall be deemed and adjudged to be unlawfully within the United States, and may be arrested by any customs official, collector of internal revenue or his deputies, Uuitecl States marshal or his deputies, and taken before a United States judge, whose duty it shall be to order that be be deported from the United States as hereinbefore provided, unless he shall establish clearly to the satisfaction of said judge that, by reason of accident, sickness, or other unavoidable cause, lie has been unable to procure his certificate, and to the satisfaction of the court, and by at least one credible white witness, that he was a resident of the United States at the time of the passage of this act ； and, if upon the hearing it shall appear that he is so entitled to a certificate, it shall be granted upon his paying the cost. Should it appear that said Chinaman had procured a certificate, which has been lost or destroyed, he shall be detained and judgment suspended a reasonable time to enable him to procure a duplicate from the officer granting it, and iu 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 laborer having a right to be and remain in the United States, desiring such certificate as evidence of such right, may apply lor and receive the same without charge. " 38 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. On inquiry, we find that Cliinese laborers are scattered over the United States. They are to be found in cities where uo Cliinese consulate has been establislied to look after tlic^r interests. Most of thein can not understand and speak the Ejiglish language. If tbey are fO]n]>oll- r (； ached in the determination of past cases, and compared the same with the nine sections of the new act, we deem it our duty to request yon to lay the. matter "before tlie President of tlie United States for his con- sideration, with a prayer that Ills excellency will cause the new act to 1"、 reconsid- ered hy the Congress of the United States, to tlie end that due regard may be paid to tlie law of nations and to the friendly intercourse between tlie two countries. Shortly after the passage of the act of July 5， 1884， the President of the Ignited States, in his message to Congress of ； December 1, 1884, observed that it was neces- sary iov tliat august body to expound the exact sense and meaning of the words em- ployed in tlie treaty in relation to the restriction of the Chinese immigTation to the T'nited States, and that, as Le coiKsidered the amendatory act passed by C'un^re.ss was in contrav(Mition of treaty stipulations, he considered it proper to ask Congress to care fully review it and modify some of its provisions. Thus it is evident that, if C. (Hcu'eived Jniniiu y 14, 1893.) Sir: In my dispatch, No. 】r)69， of the 18th of August last. I trans- niitrcd a copy of a traiislation of a coiiiniuiiicHtioii received hy me trom the foreign office, relating to the recent exclusion acts of tlie United States ； I gainst (Miiuese laborers, together with a copy of my reply tll(M ('tO. I now inclosi^ ； i 1r;uisl;ition oi' anotliei- coimiuinicatioi) from the yamon on the same subject. The yaineii states th;it several niouths liave elnpscd and it lias lcccivcd no intimntion tVoin 】h" wlictlHT I liuve or have not received a reply from the honorable Secretary of State. The yMiiK-n j)K>cc('(ls to stnt c tliat ^ lias received lVom i 'liinosc in t\w 【Jiiih'； 1 MIL', Ix-I'oi <• piosrcnt ions cjui Ix^in. Tl"' \ aiin' n t hen ； u tiles ；" considcrnhle len^tli tliat the now law vio- lates tlie treaty of 1 880. It cites Hie lavored nation" clause in that CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 39 treaty and the third article thereof, and claims that, as the matter of certificates under the new act does not apply to the citizens of other countries, it should not apply to Chinese subjects. I endeavored in my communicatiou to the yainen of August 18， 1892, to sliow that the new law was not in contravention of the treaty of 1880, so far as it related to Chinese laborers ayIio have gone to the United States since the treaty of 1880， because such persons had gone thither in violation of the acts of 1882 and 1884. But the yarnen makes no distinction between Chinese laborers who were in the United States at the date of the treaty and those who liave since unlawfully gone to the United States. The yaraen then points out the difference between the system of certificates and the passport and travel-certificate system prevailing in China, and claims that the two systems are not at all alike. The yamen proceeds to speak kindly of the Government of the United States and of myself, and expresses the hope that ym\ will request Con- gress to abrogate the new law. It concludes with the statement that it has addressed the governor of the Liang Kuang (the two southern provinces) to ascertain the views of the Chinese merchants of Canton and Hongkong, and, on a report liavhig been received, the question of making new rules for the future will be considered. I have acknowledged the receipt of this communicatiou, and have informed the j^ameu that I have not received any specific instructions on the subject under discussion. I have, etc., Charles Denby. [Inclosure in ； No. 1607. ― Translation.] The Tsu、"j U Yamen to Mr. Denby. No. 17.] November 24， 1892. Upon the 18th of August, 1892, tlie prince and ministers had the honor to receive a corumuuication from the minister of the United States, in reply to the j-anien's dispatch relative to the exclusion acts of the United States against Chinese labor- ers, wherein the minister of the United States was requested to bring the attention of the President of the United States to the unjust manner in which Chinese sub- jects h:ive becu treated. The minister of the United States stated that it would afford liini great pleasure to send to the Department of State a trauslatiou of the prince and ministers' coinmuuication, and, after having- received instructions, lie would communicate with the yamen further upon the subject. The yamen have duly perused the contents of the minister's coLamunicatiou, which, contains in substance the provisions of the supplemental treaty and also gives a re- view of the nine articles of the new act of May 5, 1892, which are in accordance with treaty stipulations. The minister of the United States further observes that if the treaty of 1888 had been approved by the Government of China, the questions now mooted would not have arisen, and the danger of the policy adopted was pointed out by him at the time. Several months have elapsed, but the prince and ministers have received, no inti- mation from the minister of the United States whether he lias or lias not received a reply from the liotiorable Secretary of State. Frequent representations liave been made by Chinese resident in America that the rule under the new law in regard to getting certificates is oppressive. In New York the police have arrested at their pleasure Chinese who have not obtained certificates. The Chinese minister to tlie United States lias laid the matter before tlie yam^n by note, and the yamen ruus lose no time in devising a plan of action. With reference to the limitation of Chinese laborers, there is a special treaty gov- erning the question. The minister of the United States states that laborers of other countries are not liable to such punishment, which may be true, but the United States have no treaty similar to the treaty of 1880 with any other power. The yaruen would observe that wheu the supplemental treaty of 1880 was negoti- 40 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. ated, the commissioners appointed by China to negotiate the same inquired of the United States commissioners that, on the framing of the treaty, whether the United States would or would not impose or inflict oppressive measures on the Chinese labor- ers, and, after the return to the United States of the American commissioners, this statement of the Chinese commissioners appeared in the foreign relations of Con- gress. (？) This treaty was concluded in an amiable and peaceful spirit, and the two Govermnents concerned were animated by the desire of pursuing perpetual friendly relations. The second article of the treaty reads as follows : "Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers, students, merchants, or from curiosity, together with their body and household servants, and Chinese laborers who are now in the United States, shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation." If the statement of the minister of the United States, u that laborers of other countries are not liable to such, punishment," is to be taken, then was not the ex- pression in the treaty of 1880， " accorded all the rights, etc., which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation," an empty and vacant inser- tion ？ If the two countries, China and the United States, are only and specially to be considered, what was the use of inserting the favored-nation clause? The third article of the supplemental treaty reads : "If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now either permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States meet with, ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation and to whicli they are entitled by treaty." Here is a repetition in this clause that Chinese [subjects] shall receive the same treatment as those of the most favored nation. As the rules of action in the niatter of certificates under the new act can not apply to other countries, then they can not ipply to Chinese subjects. The minister of the United States takes the supplemental treaty between the United States and China, of 1880， and cites that as the authority vrhj the Chinese laborer only should receive such harsh and unfair treatment. It seems this was not formerly the intent when the treaty was framed, neither is it in accordance with the wording thereof. The minister of the United States further remarks that "it [a certificate] is some- thing like the passport and travel- certificate system prevailing in China." This view the yamen really do not understand. With regard to foreigners resident in China applying for passports, these documents are either applied for by the foreign minister or consul, by an official communication (to Chinese authorities), and each receives the same treatment. The police authorities have never compelled persons to take out passports, nor is there any such thing as punishment by imprisonment. Further, the object and purpose of foreigners getting passports are specially for traveling in the interior. At the treaty ports, however, foreigners may go and come at their pleasure without these documents. Generally speaking, there is no nation that is pleased with having the name of violating treaty stipulations. Every confidence has long been reposed in the sin- cerity of purpose, integrity, and high standing of the Government of the United States, and it has always evinced the staunchest feeling of friendship toward China. The minister of the United States has resided in China many years, aud the relations between him and the yamon liave always been above suspicion ； but at present the Chinese residents in the United ！ StateH are molested aud persecuted to an unsurpassed extent, and the yamon l")p''s that tlic minister of the United States will address and urge the Secretary of State to bring the matter before Congress to have abrogated the new law of 1892 regarding the issuance of certificates, thus maintaining and preserving the friendly relations between the two nations, which is the earnest de- sire of the yamen. As to what rules may be arranged for the future, the yamen liave addressed the governor-general of the Liauvhicli you refer and which you incorporate in your present notes, rests upon the assumed claim that the status of Chinese subjects witli re- spect to the body politic of tlie United States is on the same footing as that of all other aliens of whatever nationality. Neither in the light of international reciprocity nor in that of municipal sovereignty can these assumptions liold good. The restrictions upon foreigners in China j ire special and onerous, as to vocation, residence, and travel, and are based on the natural barriers wliich. seem to forbid the assimilation of tbe foreign element with the native Chinese race. This condition of iminiscibility is likewise as forcibly i>resent in the case of Chinese in the United States as it is generally absent in regard to aliens of the same race and blood as our own. It is tlie inherent prerogative of sover- eignty to take cognizance of such incompatibilities and to provide spe- cial conditions for tbe toleration of the unassimilable element in the national community. Cliina's treatment of foreigners can ouly be justi- fied on such grounds. Moreover, this sovereign right is freely exer- cised by the United States in the adoption of restrictive or discrimina- tory legislation in regard to any classes of alien immigration whenever i lie exigencies of tlie public interests den mud aud to whatever extc:^ nmy be requisite. As I have said, the recent reenactment of the former statutes re- ^ardino Chinese ])ersons wjis iiccoini)tinie(l by provisions looking to the loi iiinl assiuaiice to tlie ii^lividual Cliinaman, lawfully resident in the I 'nilc(l Stat(3S, of liberty of residence and pursuits equally Avith the CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 43 citizen of this country, and this, too, without hiudrance of the right to establish himself where and how lie will in any part of the land. The provisions of this legislation are practically designed to secure to such Chiuamen privileges and a measure of individual freedom far beyond those accorded to American citizens in China, both in degree and in the number of those who possess thein. While differing in detail they are believed to be, in the maiu， no less easy of falflllnient than the con- ditions imposed in nearly every country of the European continent for the civil registry of the inhabitants thereof. You allege the hardship and the un constitutionality of this legislation. 工 am unprepared to admit the charge of hardship until the practical application of its pro- visions shall have demonstrated it by positive proof. It is regrettable that the attitude of the Chinese themselves appears to be as niucb one of defiance of the provisions of the statute as tliat of your Government is of protest against it in advance of a fair trial of its workings. As for the charge of uncoustitutionality brought against the penal provisions of the act in question, that is a matter to be determined, as you are doubtless aware, only by the judicial branch of the Govern- ment, which is as freely open to the Chinese subject as to tlie citizen of the United States. It is the duty of tke Executive to enforce the law, and no executive power exists to evade or repeal it. The province of the executive branch in this discussion is to bring about a better understaiicliug of the matter and to reach a good accord as to the principles iuvolved. Such an accord should not be far to seek. As you say in your note of the 7th November: " It is conceded that the Imperial Governraeiit lias not encouraged the emigration ot its people from China to the United States, but, on the contrary, in the negotiations between the countries on the subject, it lias in the most frieudly manuer yielded to the suspension of eioigratiou." It is per- haps unfortunate that the tangible expression of this frieudly disposi- tion went no further than the negotiations which preceded the collapse of the treaty signed in 1888. I see no reason why a better uud er- st an ding may not be brought about whereby the position of China shall be rather one of amicable concurrence toward a rational and practical eud thau one of obstruction to the working of measures the adoption of which has been in a large degree forced upon the legislative power of the United States by the conduct of the Chinese people in this country and by the attitude of the Imperial Government in tlieir regard. Accept, etc., William F. Wharton, Acting Secretary. O