tially the same as the previous one, but substituting ten years for the twenty years, provided for in the original measure. It should be stated that it was provided in this Act that Chinese laborers in this country, or on the way to the United States at the time of the passage of the Act, should have the right to leave or return to the United States, on adequate proof of the facts. This Act seems to have been satisfactory to the Chinese Government, and, together with measures previously adopted, checked the increase of Chinese immigration. The census of 1880 gives the total Chinese population in the United States at 105,000, of which 75,000 were in California. And from the evidence of their immigration since 1880, it appears that the arrivals are offset by their departures, so that there has been no material increase of our Chinese labor population since 1876. It is stated officially, that in the three years ending August 1, 1885, "the Chinese population in the country decreased by fully 20,000," a conclusion sustained by the steady advance of Chinese labor on the Pacific coast during that period.

But complaints were continually coming from the Pacific coast of the violation of the provisions of the Act of 1882, and supplementary measures were adopted, from time to time, to enforce its provisions, always, however, keeping within the limits of our treaty obligations. The Act itself came before the United States Supreme Court in California, which held it to be within the limits. of the Treaty of 1880.

A portion of Mr. Justice FIELD's opinion, September 24, 1883, in the case referred to, is interesting, as stating the most enlightened view of the people of California on the subject of Chinese immigration. He says:

"In the treaty of July 28, 1868, commonly known as the BURLINGAME Treaty, the contracting parties declare that they recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance; and also the mutual advantage of free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from one country to the other, for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents.' In its sixth article, they declare that citizens. of the United States, visiting or residing in China, shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities or exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nations; and, reciprocally, Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States, shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities or exemptions in respect to travel or residence, as may there be enjoyed by citizens or subjects of the most favored

nations.

"Before these articles were adopted, a great number of Chinese had emigrated to this State, [California,] and, after their adoption, the immigration largely increased. But, notwithstanding the favorable provisions of the treaty, it was found impossible for them to assimilate with our people. Their physical characteristics and habits kept them as distinct and separate as though still living in China. They engaged in all the industries and pursuits of the

State; they came in competition with white laborers in every direction; and, their frugal habits, the absence of families, their singular ability to live in narrow quarters without apparent injury to health, their contentment with the simplest fare, gave them, in this competition, great advantages over our laborers and mechanics. (7 Sawyer, 549.) They could live with apparent comfort on what would prove almost starvation to white men. Our laborers and mechanics are not content, and never should be, with the means of bare subsistence. They must have something beyond this for the comforts of a home, the support of a family, and the education of children. Competition with Chinese labor, under the conditions mentioned, was necessarily irritating and exasperating, and often led to collisions between persons of the two races. It was seen that without some restriction upon the immigration of Chinese, white laborers and mechanics would be driven from the State. They looked, therefore, with great apprehension toward the crowded millions of China and of the adjacent islands in the Pacific, and felt that there was more than a possibility of such multitudes coming as to make a residence here unendurable. It was perceived by thoughtful men, looking to the possibilities of the future, that the immigration of the Chinese must be stopped, if we would preserve this land for our people and their posterity, and protect the laborer from a competition degrading in its character, and ruinous to his hopes of material and social advancement. There went up, therefore, most urgent appeals from the Pacific coast to the Government of the United States, to take such measures as would stop the further coming of Chinese laborers. The effect of these appeals was the sending of commissioners to China, to negotiate for a modification of the treaty of 1868. The supplementary treaty of 1880 was the result. It authorized legislation restricting the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States, whenever our Government should be of the opinion that their coming would affect or threaten the interest of the country, or endanger its good order, but expressly stipulated that its provisions should not apply to other classes coming to the United States."

It may be mentioned here, that among the decisions which grew out of this Act, was one to the effect, that nothing therein prevented the transit of Chinese passengers across the country, whether laborers or others.

Notwithstanding the plain evidence that the Acts of Congress to execute the treaty of 1880 were effectual, and that former causes of alarm growing out of the rapid increase of the Chinese laboring population had been substantially removed, the irritation seemed not wholly to have ceased, and it was made the ground of further legislation hostile to the Chinese, though always with protestations of good faith, and conformity with treaty obligations. Nevertheless these measures and their execution were often the subject of friendly remonstrance on the part of the Chinese Minister at Washington, who, in a letter to Secretary BAYARD, March 9, 1886, claims. that "the guarantees so explicitly set forth in the treaty stipula

tions made between China and the United States have not been made good." He adds politely that "he feels sure that the Government of the United States would not intentionally injure its established reputation by even a seeming neglect to provide the means for the complete fulfillment of all treaty obligations."

We now come to the year 1888, during which was to be determined whether the Democratic administration of the Government should be continued. Both of the great political parties began early to manœuvre for position and to plan for the capture of votes. Among the questions which had in previous years largely determined the issue in the Pacific States, was the question of Chinese immigration.

In March, 1888, a resolution was passed in the Senate and transmitted to the President, "That in view of the difficulties and embarrassments that have attended the regulation of the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States, under the limitations of our treaty with China, the President of the United States be requested to negotiate a treaty with the Emperor of China, containing a provision that no Chinese laborer shall enter the United States."

To this the President replied, that "negotiation for a treaty was commenced many months ago and has since continued," and he expressed "the hope and expectation that a treaty will soon be concluded concerning the immigration of Chinese laborers which will meet the wants of our people and the approbation of the Senate." After prolonged discussion between Mr. BAYARD, our Secretary of State, and Mr. CHANG YEN HOON, the Chinese Minister at Washington, a new treaty was agreed upon on the 12th of March, 1888, and approved by the Senate in the course of a few weeks afterwards. This treaty declares: "Whereas the Government of China, in view of the antagonisms and much deprecated and serious disorders to which the presence of Chinese laborers has given rise in the United States, désires to prohibit the emigration of such laborers from China to the United States," and proceeds to agree in Article I., that for a period of twenty years, the coming of Chinese laborers shall be absolutely prohibited, with certain exceptions, including such as may have wives or property amounting to $1,000 in this country, and shall return here after an absence of not more than one year.

It provides for the maintenance of former stipulations concerning other classes of Chinese, and that laborers may have the right of transit across the country. It also provides that Chinese of all classes in the country shall have all the rights and privileges of the most favored nations, except that of naturalization, and the United States agrees to protect them in such rights.

This treaty was to remain in force twenty years, and be continued indefinitely after that time unless formal notice should be given by either side of intention to terminate it.

On the 12th of May, 1888, the Chinese Minister wrote to Mr. BAYARD that he had sent the treaty to his Government for ratification.

On the 5th of September the Senate, by resolution, inquired of the President "whether the recent treaty with China had been ratified by the Emperor."

In reply to this, the President transmitted dispatches from our Minister in China, first, to the effect that no "information had been received," and second, that "the treaty had been postponed for further deliberation."

Pending the further deliberation, of which our Minister in China had given notice, a bill was introduced in the Senate of the United States to enact into law the provisions of the proposed treaty and provide for their execution. This bill was approved on the 13th of September, 1888; and, as if not satisfied with this act of disrespect to a friendly Government, which had frankly conceded our demands, and was at the time deliberating upon the formal approval of the treaty which accorded them, another bill was introduced into Congress for similar purposes, but still more aggravating to the Chinese Government. It was passed and finally approved October 1, 1888. It provides," that from and after the passage of this Act it shall be unlawful for any Chinese laborer who shall at any time heretofore have been, or who may now or hereafter be, a resident within the United States, and who shall have departed or shall depart therefrom and shall not have returned before the passage of this Act, to return to or remain in the United States; that no certificate of identity, etc., shall be issued, and every certificate heretofore issued is declared void, and the Chinese laborer claiming admission by virtue thereof shall not be permitted to enter the United States." It further repeals all parts of the Act of 1882 which may be inconsistent with this Act.

In a message to Congress, dated October 1, 1888, in which President CLEVELAND signifies his approval of the Act just above referred to, he enters into a formal apology for the conduct of this Government in refusing to await the deliberations of the Chinese Government. The President states, that on the 21st September he had received a telegram from our Minister in China "announcing the refusal to exchange ratifications unless further discussion could be had," and that, in view of this refusal, "an emergency had arisen in which the Government of the United States is called upon to act in self-defence by the exercise of its legislative power."

The official correspondence submitted with this message shows that while the general purpose of the treaty was approved by the Chinese Government, some of the details caused dissatisfaction to the Chinese people, and, for that reason, the Chinese Government desired that the treaty should be reconsidered.

A communication from the Chinese Legation in Washington, dated September 25, 1888, informs Secretary BAYARD that the Chinese Minister would return to Washington in twenty-two or twentythree days, to re-open the discussion of some of these details, and hopes, from the cordial relations which have hitherto existed between the two Governments, that satisfactory conclusions will be reached.

But on the 18th of September, a week before the above corres

pondence took place, Secretary BAYARD sent the following dispatch to our Minister in China: "DENBY, Minister, Peking.-The bill has passed both Houses of Congress for total exclusion of Chinese, and awaits President's approval. Public feeling on the Pacific coast excited in favor of it, and situation critical. Impress on Government of China necessity for instant decision in the interest of treaty relations and amity.-BAYARD." Imagine the effect of this lash and spur applied to the stately and exalted Emperor of China and his dignified counsellors, especially in view of the courtesy and conciliation with which they had uniformly treated our Government and its representatives.

Minister DENBY replied, on September 21st, that the Chinese Government refused ratification unless after further consideration of details, and this it was preparing to give, as shown by the correspondence of September 26th, already quoted.

The extraordinary haste with which our Government proceeded thus to affront its ancient friend-to override its formal treaty stipulations, and substitute arbitrary legislation for diplomatic negotiations-presents a spectacle to which no American can well recur without a sense of mortification that the Government of the United States should have shown itself so far inferior in courtesy and justice to the Government of a nation ordinarily, though erroneously, considered barbarian.

It is difficult to discover the emergency to which the President refers as his justification. It is evident that under existing treaties with China, and the laws enacted in pursuance thereof, the objections to Chinese immigration had been substantially removed. The difficulties which remained were only in details, to secure the more perfect execution of the laws. The Chinese had ceased to come in dangerous numbers. Those who were here were spreading over the country, learning our language and usages, and everywhere proving themselves a quiet, law-abiding and inoffensive people. The complaints, which formerly were heard, of their depressing influence on wages and labor, had ceased to be frequent or urgent. The Chinese were found to be apt in demanding high wages, as they were commendable in saving them. Nowhere in the country was there any pressing demand for this class legislation. It can be explained only on the theory that a Presidential election was pending, and that a demonstration must be made to capture the vote of the Pacific States. It may be said that these harsh and unnecessary measures, which were adopted just before the election of 1888, were not vigorously opposed by the anti-administration party, for reasons similar to those which inspired the promoters of those

measures.

To close this already too lengthy statement of the circumstances which have led up to our present relations with China, it may be added, that the Supreme Court of the United States has this year affirmed the constitutionality of the Chinese Exclusion Act, so called, on the broad ground of the power of Congress to abrogate a treaty. And it cannot be denied that the Act itself, and the decision of the Supreme Court, were received with great satisfaction