laborers not only a lien upon any land that they might enter, but

they might earn. 1

upon the wages Senator Sherman, in reporting this measure to the Senate, very adroitly tried to conceal its real purpose, but inadvertently disclosed the secret before concluding his statement. He said:

"The special wants for labor in this country at the present time are very great. The war has depleted our workshops and materially lessened our supply of labor in every department of industry and mechanism. In their noble response to the call of their coun ry our workmen in every branch of the useful arts have left vacancies, which must be filled or the material interests of the country must suffer. The immense amount of native labo occupied by the war calls for a large increase of foreign immigration to make up the deficiency at home. The demand for labor never was greater than at present, and the fields of usefulness were never so varied and promising."

It was true, as stated by Senator Sherm in, that there was a noble response to the call of their country” by the workingmen, but while absent fighting its battles their vacant place should not have been filled with cheap laborers imported from Europe under contract. Paupers unable to get to this country under the terms and provisions of this law could virtually enslave themselves in foreign countries to American contractors and American manufacturers, and the contract would be enforced here to the fullest extent.

The second section of this law reads as follows:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That all contracts that shall be made by emigrants to the United States in foreign countries, in conformity to regulations that may be established by the said Commissioner, whereby emig ants shall pledge the wages of their labor for a term not ex eeding twelve months, to repay the expenses of their emigration, shall be held to be valid in law, and may be e iforced in the courts of the United States or of the several States and Territories; and such advances, if so stipulated in the contract, and the contract be recorded in the recorder's office in the county where the emigrant shall settle, shall operate as a lien upon any land thereafter acquired by the emigrant, whether under the homestead law when the title is consummated, or on property otherwise acquired until liquidated by the emigrant; but nothing herein contained shall be deemed to authorize any contract con.ravening the Constitution of the United States, or crea in in any way the relation of slavery or servitude." (U. S. Stats. at Large, vol. 15, 1863–65.)

The extent to which the authors of this measure knew they were going is apparent from the last lines of this section-"but nothing herein contained shall be deemed to authorize any contra t, contravention of the Constitution of the United States, or creating in any way the relation of slavery or servitude."

A further provision of this law exempted the immigrants imported under contract from military service. The American workman might be taken from his place in the shop at any time, but the imported laborer was in no danger.

When we ask Republicans why they took advantage of the absence of the wageworkers who were in the Army, they say it was necessary. Labor was scarce and wages were high! Will they answer why, when the war was over, when the armies disbanded and the men returned home to take their places, this law was not repealed? Will they inform us why, when a half million or more of men were discharged from the mills or factories in 1873, this law was kept upon the statute books? Will they answer why during that long period of depression, when hundreds of thousands of men were out of employment and seeking work, it was neces sary to import as was done under this law, large numbers of European laborers?

LABOR DAY A HOLIDAY.

Made One by a Democratic Congress for the Benefit of the Workers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the first Monday of September in each year, being the day celebrated and known as Labor's Holiday, is hereby made a legal public holiday, to all intents and purposes, and in the same manner as Christmas, the first day of January, the twenty-second day of February, the thirtieth day of May, and the fourth day of July are now made by law public holidays.

Approved, June 28, 1894.

RESTRICTING CHINESE IMMIGRATION.

All Legislation to that end has been Secured by the Democratic Party.

Not only the Pacific coast, but our entire country is vitally interested in the subject of Chinese immigration, and the most casual examination of the Congressional Record will show that our toilers owe all the beneficial legislation that has been had upon this subject to the Democratic party, and while many Republican converts have been made of late years, their change of heart is due to the persistent work accomplished under Democratic leadership.

The efforts to restrict Chinese immigration as far as Congress is concerned began December 6, 1869. Upon that date Senator Williams of Oregon introduced a bill to regulate immigration and to prevent importation of coolie labor. This bill was indefinitely postponed upon motion of Senator Zach. Chandler, a Republican.

In January, 1870, Representative Johnson (California) introduced a joint resolution to restrict this immigration, but the Republican committee refused to report it.

On June 1870, Senator Stewart of Nevada introduced a bill to prohibit contracts for servile labor. Also defeated.

On June 7, Representative Sargent (California) introduced a similar bill in the House. No report was made.

On July 7, 1870, Representative Mungen (Ohio) introduced a resolution for the protection of American labor against Chinese. This was killed in committee.

On July 9, 1870, Representative Cake (Pennsylvania) introduced a resolution against the importation of Chinese coolies and directing an investigation. This bill also failed in committee.

On December 18, 1871, Representative Coughlan (California) introduced a bill to prohibit contracts for servile labor, which was referred to the Judiciary Committee. This committee was discharged from further consideration and the bill referred to another committee, which reported a substitute never considered.

On April 30, 1872, Senator Casserly (California) introduced a bill to prohibit contracts for servile labor, which also died in committee.

In 1879, Mr. Willis, our present Minister to the Hawaiian Islands, reported to the House a restriction bill. He took strong grounds against Chinese immigration. He concluded his statement in these words: "No self-governing country can afford to diminish or destroy the dignity, welfare and independence of its citizens. Justice to the people of the Pacific coast, the dictates of common humanity and benevolence, as well as the plainest suggestions of practical statesmanship, all demand that the problem of Chinese immigration shall be solved while it is yet within the legislative control. Governed by these views, your committee present and recommend the passage of the bill accompanying this report."

When this measure was adopted, Mr. Garfield (afterwards President) proposed an amendment to prevent the bill from going into effect until the Chinese Empire was apprised of the termination of the then treaty. The amendment being declared out of order, the bill was ordered to engrossment and a third reading. On its passage under a call from the yeas and nays, Mr. Garfield failed to vote, and the measure was passed by 155 yeas to 72 nays. (Record, Forty-fifth Congress, third session, p. 801.) Of the affirmative votes 104 were Democratic and 51 Republican. Those voting in the negative were 56 Republicans and 16 Democrats.

The Senate considered and passed the bill on the 15th of February. In that body 22 Democrats and 19 Republicans and 1 Independent voted in the affirmative, and 20 Republicans and 8 Democrats in the negative.

The Senate made certain amendments, and when the bill was reported back to the House, Mr. Willis moved that the bill be taken up and that the House concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. Garfield called for separate votes on each amendment. The motion was made to lay the bill and amendments on the table. This vote was lost by 95 yeas to 140 nays, Mr. Garfield voting yea.

The measure was vetoed by President Hayes, and failed to pass over the vetothe House vote being, yeas, 110, nays, 96. As prominent a Republican as General Garfied lead the negatives. (Record, Forty-fifth Congress, third session, p. 2277.) Of the 110 members who voted to pass the measure over the veto were 88 Democrats and 22 Republicans. The negative vote was composed thus: Republicans 81, Democrats 15.

In September, 1880, a new treaty was negotiated by which the United States were given the right to restrict immigration, and in 1882 a bill su-pending immigration of Chinese laborers for the period of twenty years passed the House by a vote of 167 to 66. This vote was divided as follows: Yeas, Democrats 98; Green-backers 8; Republicans 61. Nays, Republicans 62; Democrats 4; total, 66. In the Senate: Yeas, Democrats 31; Republicans 6; total, 37. Nays, Democrats none; Republicans 28; Independent 1; total, 29. This bill was vetoed by a Republican President, and upon the question of passing it over his veto the Senators voted just as they did upon the original question. This, of course, defeated it.

Thereupon a new bill in which the term of exclusion was limited to ten years and which was really the first positive exclusion act, was passed. Upon this measure the vote in the House was, yeas: Democrats, 103; Republicans, 91; Greenbackers, 7; total, 201. Nays: Republicans, 34; Democrats, 3; total, 37. In the Senate, yeas: Democrats, 31; Republicans, 9; total, 40. Nays: Republicans, 24; Democrats, none; Independent, 1; total, 25.

This measure is known as the act of May 6, 1882.

Afterwards the Federal judges in California held that Chinamen who were subjects of countries other than China were not within the restrictions of this law, and thereupon another act of July 5, 1884, was passed, for the purpose of remedying the defect. The vote upon the act of 1884 in the House was as follows: Yeas, 184; nays, 13. The nays were all Republican.

The bill was reported favorably by the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the House by a strict party vote, and the record show that every voice raised against it, as well as every vote, was Republican. Its fate in the Senate was exceedingly dubious until the pressure of campaign necessities forced it through.

When the act of 1884 was under consideration, ex-President Harrison, who was

then a member of the Senate, failed to record himself, but he voted against the act of 1882 and also voted to strike out the section which prohibited naturalization of the Chinese. (See record of the Senate of April 28th, 1882.)

It will thus be seen that three Republican Presidents, viz: Hayes, Garfield, and Harrison, did not sympathize with the efforts made by the Democratic party to exclude Chinese coolie competition, and the same was true of President Arthur. The following declaration of two very eminent Republicans tend clearly in the same direction.

Senator Oliver P. Morton, who investigated the Chinese question by persona inspection in California, presented a report to the body of which he was a member, entitled: Senate Mi. Doc. No. 20, 2d session, 44th Congress. Among other things he said: "But before entering upon the discussion of any other principle, I may be permitted to observe that in my judgment the Chinese cannot be protected in the Pacific States while remaining in their alien condition. Without representation in the legislature or Congress, without a voice in the selection of officers, and surrounded by fierce, and in many respects, unscrupulous enemies, the law will be found insufficient to screen them from persecution. Complete protection can be given them only by allowing them to become citizens and acquire the right of suffrage, when their votes would become important in elections and their persecutiors in great part converted into kindly solicitation."

Senator Hoar of Massachusetts, in a speech delivered in the Senate March 1, 1882, declared that the Chinamen who obey the law was entitled "to go every where on the surface of the earth that his welfare may require." He further asserted that "this privilege is beyond the rightful control of government." His Demo ratic colleagues ably and completely refuted this argument.

The following views of the leading San Francisco Republican papers further illustrate this position :

(San Francisco Call, April 10, 1882.)

Notwithstanding that most of the Republican Senators, except those who represent the States of the Pacific, opposed the passage of the anti-Chinese bill, which President Arthur vetoed, there is a studied effort to deceive our people by saying that Democratic Congressmen are trying to defeat the passage of another anti-Chinese bill. We have reason to believe there is not a word of truth in it, for did not nearly all the Democratic Senators and Representatives in Congress do their utmost to pass the bill which the President, instigated by his stalwart friends, vetoed?

(San Francisco Call, April 5, 1882.)

The recent exercise of the veto power by President Arthur in reference to the Chinese bill, is, perhaps, the most arbitrary act an American President has ever performed. The message is worse for the President and his party than if he had based it on an excessive term of prohibition. It is a flat contradiction of the platform on which he was elected, and raises the question whether the anti-Chinese plank in the Republican platform was not a deliberate deceit practiced on the people of this Coast.

(San Francisco Bulletin, April 3, 1882.)

The opposition exhibited to the Chinese by these facts has been extending instead of decreasing. It is, in short, the development of a great labor question,