existing industrial condition of the country is attributed in any degree to the influx of laborers from abroad.

4. Whether any measures, and, if so, what, can be adopted under existing legislation to discourage the concentration of immigrant laborers in particular localities and to secure a better distribution of immigrants whose admission to the country is not prohibited by law.

5. Whether the "padrone" system exists in this country, and, if so, to what extent and among what class of immigrants, and what measures can be taken under existing laws to break it up and protect American laborers against its evil effects upon wages and at the same time improve the social and economic condition of the immigrants.

The commissioners were also directed to secure and report such information, from all available sources, it would enable the Department to employ its official force in the most effective manner for the enforcement of the immigration and contract-labor laws according to their true intent and purpose, and to suggest such amendments as experience may have shown to be necessary in order to adapt them to existing conditions.

This commission last year published a very complete and exhaustive preliminary report, answering the questions asked by the honorable Secretary and suggesting thirty changes and amendments to the present laws for the purpose of correcting the errors and in strengthening the laws where they were deficient in bringing about the results contemplated by their founders. The value of this report is best shown by the fact that, in the immigration debate before Congress during last winter's session, this report was used as a reference by almost every member of Congress of both parties who spoke upon the question, and several of the Republican members desired to be put on record as expressing their unqualified approval of the work of the Bureau of Immigration and the results accomplished for the benefit of the people. The commission is now busily engaged in preparing a supplementary report, and it is to be hoped that when this is presented to Congress a practical solution of this problem will be obtained.

Certainly no criticism can be made that the present officers of the immigration service are in anywise lacking in zeal, energy, or capacity in dealing with this complex subject. On the other hand, their efforts are being daily supplemented by the assistance of intelligent and appreciative workmen throughout the whole United States whose co-operation has been sought. The Democratic party has every reason to congratulate itself upon the successful efforts of its appointees to regulate immigration in accordance with the best interests of the whole people and without unjust discrimination.

RESTRICTING CHINESE IMMIGRATION.

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 6, 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 benevo lence, 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 Garfield 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 suspending 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; Greenbackers 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 persecutions 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 Democratic colleagues ably and completely refuted this argument. The following views of a leading San Francisco Republican paper 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.

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 lisagreeably 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