which no public man can face and continue in or enter public life. It has already been formulated as pro tection to American labor, which is just as necessary as protection to American manufactures. (San Francisco Bulletin, March 30, 1882.) This state is to be saved by wise limits to Chinese immigration or it is to be hopelessly cursed by immigration which is irredeemable and outside of all future improvement. The journals and the politicians who prefer the latter alternative are not the friends of this country, and no argument of their assumed philanthropy can make them such. The forces and the influences which are at work to-day in favor of unrestricted Chinese immigration are hostile to the Pacific Coast and to the best interests of the whole country. He who is not with us is against us. Hostility to the proposed measure is hostility to the prosperity of the Pacific States (San Francisco Call, February 9, 1882.) We fear that it is not quite so certain that a bill restricting Chinese immigration will be passed during the present session of Congress, as some of our contemporaries seem to anticipate. Certain it is that Republicans alone cannot pass it, for they have not a majority in both houses of Congress, and it is also known that some Republicans will oppose any and all bills. No bill can possibly pass Congress unless it be approved by a majority of the Democratic members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Of this our citizens may be assured; but as the Democratic party is proverbially the friend of labor, there cannot be any doubt that they will favor the passage of such a bill as will relieve this coast of its present troubles. (San Francisco Bulletin, April 29, 1882.) The bill for the exclusion of the Chinese passed the Senate yesterday by a vote of 32 to 15-22 Democrats, 9 Republicans, and David Davis, president pro tem., voting for it. All the Democratic Senators from the West and those from the South voted for the bill. Ingalls, of Kansas, was inclined to assist us, but the missi ›nary sniveling was probably too much for him, and he voted against the bill. Of the 15 votes in the negative 11 were furnished by New England-all its Senators but This indicates that the area of Chinamania is confined principally to that section, with a queer extension in the direction of Georgia. This area is also that which is devoted to the manufacture of cottons for the Chinese trades. The other four negatives were: one. Harrison, of Indiana; Ingalls, of Kansas; Sherman, of Ohio. The bill which went through the Senate, was passed by the House by the enormous vote of 201 to 37, 6 more than two-thirds of the whole body. Of the 201, 107 were Democrats and 94 Republicans. We will have the law on our side to stop the yellow tide, and the people of California will see that the law is executed. No technicalities, evasions, or loop-holes will be tolerated on this coast. (San Francisco Bulletin, March 10, 1882.) * The bill suspending Chinese immigration passed the Senate yesterday. * The great body of the negatives were Republicans. It is proper to state that two of them-Edmunds and Ingalls-would have voted for the bill if the term of suspen * * * gion had been reduced to ten years. The only real Democratic vote in the negative— for Davis, of Illinois, is an unknown political quantity-was Brown, of Georgia. It is quite apparent from the above vote that if the Republicans in the House cannot be rallied to the support of the measure more generally than in the higher chamber, there is some danger of the failure of the bill. Only a fifth of the Republican Senators voted against it. If these proportions are maintained in the House, the shave by which the bill is likely to pass will be very slight, unless, indeed, broader views are more generally accepted there. (San Francisco Call, March 10, 1882.) The anti-Chinese bill has passed the Senate by a majority of nearly two to one of the Senators voting-29 to 15. It is a matter for congratulation that but fifteen Senators were willing to place themselves on recorl in opposition to the right of government to regulate immigration. The position taken by the opponents of the bill would have required us to sit quietly down and let foreign hordes crowd into our country without regard to their fitness to share with us the responsibilities of government. On March 16th, 1888, President Cleveland sent to the Senate for consideration a treaty by the terms of which Chinese laborers were to be excluded for a term of twenty years. The Senate made two amendments of an immaterial character, but the Chinese Government refused to ratify the treaty as amended. Thereupon the act of October 1, 1888, was passed. This statute was known as the Scott exclusion act, and excluded all Chinese laborers not then in the United States. Mr. Cleveland, in approving this statute, sent a very clear and succinct statement to Congress demonstrating that the cause of the conduct of the Chinese government in refusing to act upon the treaty submitted it was neces ary to affirmatively legislate to the end that this country might be protected from Mongolian competition. Mr. Cleveland thus demonstrated that he cordially sympathized with the efforts of the people of the Pacific coast to protect themselves from the threatened danger. The act of 1888 was essentially a Democratic measure. On May 5, 1892, the Geary law was approved. This also proceeded from a Democratic source and was pushed by Democratic effort. Under its provisions all Chinese laborers within the United States and entitled to remain, are required to register and procure a certificate of registration from the proper officer of the United States. This act was designed to make it practically impossible for Chinese laborers who unlawfully entered the United States after the expiration of the time for registration to remain therein. Not having a certificate their identification is easy. The Chinese in California contested the validity of this statute, but the Supreme Court of the United States, by a divided bench, declared it valid. The time for registration having expired the act of November 3, 1893, was passed, extending the registration privilege six months. This statute contains a valuable though stringent addition to earlier legislation. It requires that the certificates of residence to be issued thereunder must contain the photograph of the applicant, together with his name, local residence and occupation, and that a copy of such certificate with a duplicate of the photograph must be filed in the office of the local collector of internal revenue, and that such photographs and duplicate shall be furnished by each applicant in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. This statute was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President. THE RECENT TREATY WITH CHINA. On March 17, '94, a convention was concluded at Washington between the United States and China concerning the subject of immigration. Upon being presented to the Senate it was carefully considered and was ratified upon August 13, following. Criticisms have been made for partisan purposes upon this treaty, but an investigation of its terms will readily silence opposition and demonstrate the wisdom of its negotiations. Prior to this treaty our diplomatic relations with China were disagreeably strained, and while we cannot afford to take any steps which will place our people in competition with coolie labor, we must neverthless do our best to deserve the respect and confidence of every nation, whether civilized or otherwise. This treaty is almost identical with that which was ratified in 1888, and which China finally refused to accept, the important difference between the two documents being that the present engagement permits only registered Chinese laborers to return to the United States and expressly recognizes the duty of all Mongolians within our borders to comply with the acts of May 5, 1892, and November 3, 1893, while the rejected treaty contained no reference to the important subject of registration. Hence the present compact is more favorable to the United States than former, as we are willing and anxious to ratify the treaty of 1888. No reason can be assigned to justify questioning the wisdom of accepting that of 1894. Protests were filed by various parties againts the ratification of the treaty, but all of them were based upon misappprehension of its terms. It may be well to briefly state some of these objections : 1. It is urged that article 2 gives the right to return to every registered Chinese laborer who has a lawful wife, child or parent in the United States or property therein of the value of $1,000, or debts of like amount due him and pending settlement. In the absence of the treaty these laborers have a right to live and die in the United States, there is no law demanding their exit and it is not perceived why a Chinaman whom we concede may stay with us permanently shall not be allowed to temporarily absent himself. We must, or ought to be, rational concerning this as well as other matters. In the next place no harm can be done by the enforcement of such a provision. Suppose every Chinaman now in the United States were to forwith avail himself of the privilege granted and visit China for one year, and then return, would our laborers be injured because of his trip? Would they be better off if the Mongolian had not made the visit and had remained in this country to compete with them? If we desire to rid ourselves of these people for good can we afford to object to even temporary relief? 2. It is further argued that Chinese laborers who have no property and no debts owing to them will, by perjury, impose upon our officers and obtain the privilege of going from and returning to the United States. The answer to this is twofold. Proper Treasury regulations administered by our own officials will make successful fraud rare. And secondly, for the reasons already given, if all resident Chinamen were allowed the benefit of a visit, regardless of their pecuniary or family condition, no harm would follow. The fact is that Chinese laborers have been coming into the United States in vio lation of the Scott Exclusion Act, because of the difficulties of identification. But the registration provided for by the act of 1894, and especially the photographic and descriptive certificate will make it perilous and unprofitable to further press the importation of Chinese not entitled to land. There are no other objections worthy of the name to the second article. The third article of the treaty has been criticised because it permits persons who re not officials, teachers, students, merchants or travelers for curiosity or pleasure, ezer the United States. In the first place such is the law without the treaty. Article 3 confers no advantage pon Chinamen which they do not at present enjoy. If the treaty were obliterated these people could enter under the sixth section of July 5, 1884. This act forms the basis of this treaty provision, and was properly considered at the time it was adopted as the most rigid exclusion measure theretofore proposed. All the votes cast against it in the lower House of Congress were cast by Republicans, and the only argument advanced by them was that the act was unduly severe. Moreover none of the persons described in the third article can enter the United States without the approval of our consular officers. It has been said by those who are probably entirely ignorant of the provisions of the treaty, that it overrules the Geary and McCreary laws. The absurdity of this pretense becomes manifest when the fifth article is examined, which explicitly recognizes the validity of those acts and binds both governments to their enforcement. It has also been urged that it is undignified for the United States to permit a foreign government to acquiesce in the enforcement of our laws. This would be absurd in any case, but it is particularly so in this instance, since the Supreme Court of the United States sustained the registration law by a bare majority, and since that time one of the judges whose vote was necessary to the decision and who concurred therein has died, and his able successor has never been called upon to express an opinion upon this topic. The advantages of the treaty are manifest. Outside of the relief which it affords us in the removal of the imputation that we have disregarded diplomatic usages in the violation of antecedent treaties, it binds both governments to absolute exclusion. The very first article says: "The high contracting parties agree that for a period of ten years, beginning with the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, the coming, except under the conditions hereinafter specified, of the Chinese laborers to the United States shall be absolutely prohibited." The only exceptions are as to registered laborers who have relations in this country, or assets of the value of one thousand dollars, who are permitted to go to China and return. No Chinese laborer not now in the United States can ever come here. Hence when demagogues assert that this treaty let down the bars and that thousands of Mongolians will enter the United States under it, they make a declaration as silly as it is untruthful. It has been said that the certificate to be given the laborer upon his departure may be used by another. These certificates will be properly prepared. The laborer's photograph will be retained, and an adequate description of his person, so that such fraud will not be practicable. But if the certificate is transferred, it is evident that it cannot be divided, and if the Chinaman who leaves the United States manages to find his double, he will lose his own right to return. The treaty will, when ratified by China, be supplemented by legislation making an imposition or attempted imposition of this kind a crime, and it will not pay to take the risk of severe penalties, especially as the opportunity for the discovery is so favorable. Mr. Cleveland has done more than any other President to deliver the country from the perils of Mongolian immigration. The following is the treaty to which reference has been made : Whereas, on the 17th day of November, A. D. 1880, and of Kwanghsü, the sixth year, tenth moon, fifteenth day, a Treaty was concluded between the United States and China for the purpose of regulating, limiting or suspending the coming of Chinese laborers to, and their residence in, the United States; and Whereas, the Government of China, in view of the antagonism and much deprecated and serious disorders to which the presence of Chinese laborers has given rise in certain parts of the United States, d sires to prohibit the emigration of such laborers from China to the United States; and Whereas, the two governments desire to co-operate in prohibiting such emigration, and to strengthen in other ways the bonds of friendship between the two countries; and Whereas, the two Governments are desirous of adopting reciprocal measures for the better protection of the citizens or subjects of each within the jurisdiction of the other; Now, therefore, the President of the United States has appointed Walter Q. Gresham, Secretary of State of the United States, as his Plenipotentiary, and His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of China, has appointed Yang Yu, Officer of the second rank, Sub-Director of the Court of Sacrificial Worship, and Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States of America, as his Plenipotentiary; and the said Plenipotentiaries, having exhibited their respective Full Powers found to be in due and good form, have agreed upon the following articles : ARTICLE I. The High Contracting Parties agree that for a period of ten years, beginning with the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this Convention, the coming, except under the conditions hereinafter specified, of Chinese laborers to the United States shall be absolutely prohibited. ARTICLE II. The preceding Article shall not apply to the return to the United States of any registered Chinese la' orer who has a lawful wife, child o parent in the United States, or property therein of the value of one thousand dollars, or debts of like amount due him and pending settlement. Nevertheless every such Chinese laborer shali, before leaving the United States, deposit as a condition of his return, with the collector of customs of the district from which he departs, a full description in writing of his family, or property, or debts, as aforesaid, and shall be furnished by said collector with such certificate of his right to return nnder this Treaty as the laws of the United States may now or hereafter prescribe and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Treaty, and should the written description aforesaid be proved to be false, the right of return thereunder, or of continued residence after return, shall in |