Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 April 1882 — THE CHINESE BILL. [ARTICLE]

THE CHINESE BILL.

President Arthur’s Heaitotu for Vetoing It— Full Text •< the Veto Nmea<e. The following is the full text of the President's message vetoing the anti-Chinese bill: To the Senate: After a careful consideration of Senate bill No. 71, entitled “An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese,” I herewith return it to the Senate, in which it originated, with my objections to its passage. A nation is justified in repudiating its treaty obligations only when they are in conflict with great paramount interests. Even then all possible reasonable means for modifying or changing these obligations by mutual agreement should be exhausted before resorting to the supreme right of refusal to comply with them. These rules have governed the United States in their past intercourse with other powers, as one of the family of nations. I am persuaded that if Congress can feel that this act violates the faith of the nation, as sdedged5 dedged to China, it will concur with me in reacting this mode of regulating Chinese immigration, and will endeavor to find another which shall meet the expectations of the people of the United States without coming in conflict with the rights of China. The present treaty relations between that power and the United States spring from an antagonism which arose between our paramount domestic interests and our previous relations. The treaty commonly Known as the Burlin?ame treaty conferred upon Chinese subsets the right of voluntary emigration to the United States for the purpose of curiosity or trade, or as permanent residents, and was in all respects reciprocal as to citizens of the United States in China. It gave to the voluntary emigrant coming to the United States the right to travel there or reside there, wfth all the privileges, immunities or exemptions enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of ths most favored nation. Under the operations of this treaty it was found the institutions of the United States and the character of its people and their means of obtaining a livelihood might be seriously affected by au unrestricted introduction of Chinese labor. Congress attempted to alleviate this condition by legislation, but the act which it passed proved to be in violation of our treaty obligations, and, being returned by the President with his objections, failed !o become a law. Diplomatic relief was then sought A new treaty was concluded with China. Without abrogating the Burlingame treaty it was agreed to modify it so far that the Government of the United States might regulate, limit or suspend the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, but that it s> mild not absolutely prohibit them, and th: l the limitation or suspension should be reasonable, and should apply only to the Chinese who might go to the United States as laborers, other classes not being included in the limitation. This treaty is umliteral not reciprocal. It is a concession from the Chinese Government to the United States, or a limitation of the rights which she was enjoying under the Burlingame treaty. It leaves' us by our own act to determine when and how we will enforce these China may therefore fairly have the right to expect that in enforcing them we will take good care not to overstep this grant, and take more than has been conceded us. It is but a year since this new treaty, under the operation of the constitution, became part of the supreme law of the land, and the present act is the first attempt at the exercise of the more enlarged powers which China relinquishes to the United States. In its first article the United States is empowered to decide whether the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect our interests, or to endanger good order, either within the whole country or any part of it. The act recites that “in the opinion of the Government of the United States, the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers good order in certain localities thereof," but the act itself is much broader than the recital. It acts upon residence as well as immigration; its provisions are effective throughout the United States. I think it may fairly be accepted as an expression of the opinion of Congress that the coming of such laborers to the United States, or their residence here, affects our interests and endangers good order throughout the country. On this point I should feel it my duty to accept the views of Congress.

The first article further confers the power upon this Government to regulate, limit or suspend, but not actually prohibit the coming of such laborers to, or their residence in, the United States. The negotiators of the treaty have recorded, with unusual fullness, their understanding of the sense and meaning with which these words were used. As the class of persons to be affected by the treaty, the Americans inserted in their draft of the provisions that the words “ Chinese laborers ” signifies all immigration, other than that for teaching, trade, travel, study and curiosity. Tue Chinese objected to this, in that it operated to include artisans in a class of laborers whose emigration might be forbidden. The Americans replied that they could not consent that artisans shall be excluded from the class of Chinese laborers, for it is their very competition of ski-lled labor in cities where Chinese labor immigrants concentrate, which has caused embarrassment and popular discontent In subsequent negotiations this definition was dropped out, and does not appear in the treaty.

Article 1 of the treaty confers the rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions which are accorded to citizens and subjects of the most favored nation upon Chinese subjects proceeding to us as teachers, students, merchants or from curiosity. The American Commissioners report that the Chinese Government claimed that in this article they did, by exclusion, provide nobod; should be entitled to claim the benefit of the general provisions of the Burlingame treaty but those who might go to the United State's in these capacities or for these purposes. I accept this as a definition of tbe word “laborers” as used in the treaty. As to tho power of legislation respecting this class of persons, the new treaty provides: “We may not absolutely prohibit” their coming or their residence. The Chinese Commissioners gave notice in the outset that they would never agree to the prohibition of voluntary emigration. Notwithstanding thia, the United States Commissioners submitted a draft- in which it was providea the United States might “regulate, limit, suspend or prohibit” it The Chinese refused to accept this. The Americans replied they were willing to consult the wishes of the Chinese Government in preserving the principle of free intercourse between th" people *of the two countries, as establisheu by existing treaties, provided the right of tho United States Government to use its discretion in guarding against any possible evils of the immigration of Chinese laborers was distinctly recognized. Therefore, it such concession removes all difficulty on the part of the Chinese Commissioners (but only in that cause), the United States Commissioners will agree to remove the word “prohibit” from their article, and to use the words “ regulate, limit or suspend.” The Chinese reply to this can only be inferred from the fact that—in place of the agreement as proposed by our Commissioners that we might prohibit the coming or residence of Chinese laborers—there was inserted in the treaty an agreement that we might not do it The remaining words, “regulate, limit, and suspend,” first appear in the American draft. When it was submitted to the’ Chinese, they said : “We infer that of the phrases, regulate, limit, suspend or prohibit, the first is a general expression referring to the others. We are entirely ready to negotiate wth your Excellencies to the end that limitations, qithein point of time or rumbers, may bo fixed upon, of the emigration of Chinese laborers to the United States. At a subsequent interview it was understood that by “limitation of number” they meant, for example, that the United States, having, as they supposed, by record, the number of immigrations in each year, as well as the total number of Chinese now here, that no more should be allowed to go in any one year in the future than the greatest number 'which had gone in the past, or that the total number should never be allowed to exceed the number now there. As to the limitation to time, they meant, for example, that the Chinese should be allowed to go in alternate years, or every third year, or, for example, that' they should not be allowed to go for two, three or five years. At a subsequent conference the Americans said the Chinese Commissioners have in their project explicitly recognized the right of tho United States to use some discretion, and have proposed limitation as to time and number. This is the r ght to regulate, limit or suspend. In one of the conferences the Chinese asked tho Americans whether they could give them any idea of the laws which would be passed to Carry these powers into execution. The Americans answered tills could hardly be done ; that the United States Government might never deem it necessary to exercise this would depend upon circumstances. If Chinese immigration cmcentrated in cities where it threatened public order, or if it confined itself to localities where it was an injury to the interests of the American people, tho Government ot the United States would undoubtedly t-ke steps to prevent such accumulations of Chinese. If, on tho contrary, there was no larger immigration, or if there were sections of the country where such immigration was clearly beneficial, then legislation by the United States under this power would be adapted to such circumstances. For example, there might be a demand for Chinese labor in the South and a surplus of such labor in California ; then Congress might legislate in accordance with these facts. In general, the legislation would be m view of and depend upon the circumstances of the situation at the moment such legislation became necessary. The Chinese Commissioners said this explanation was satisfactory; that they had not intended to ask for a draft of any special act, but for some general idea of how the power would be exercised. What had just been said gave them an explanation of what they wanted. With this entire accord m to the meaning of th< words they were gfeout to Maploy ( <uidth«

object of the legislation which might be had in consequence, both parties signed the treaty. In article 1, in which 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, it is stated the limitation or suspension shall be reasonable, and shall apply only to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes not being included in the limitation. The legislation taken in regard to Chinese laborers will be of such character only as is necessary to enforce the regulation, limitation or suspension of immigration. The first section of the act provides that from and after the expiration of sixty days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of twenty years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers shall be, and the same is hereby, suspended, and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having so come after the expiration of said sixty days, to remain in the United States. The examination which I have made of the treaty and of the declarations which its negotiators have left on record of the meaning of its language leaves no doubt in my mind that neither contracting party, in concluding the treaty of 1880, contemplated the passage of an a«t prohibiting immigration for twenty years, which is nearly a generation, or thought that such period would be a reasonable suspension or limitation, or intended to change the provisions of the Burlingame treaty to that extent I regard this provision of the act as a breach of our national faith, and, being unable to bring myself in harmony with the views of Cougress on this vital point, the honor of the country constrains me to return the act with this objection to its passage.

Deeply convinced of the necessity of some legislation on this subject, and concurring fully with Congress with any of the objects which are sought to be accomplished, I will avail myself of the opportunity to point out some other features of the act which in my opinion can be modified to advantage. The cuisses of the Chinese who still enjoy the protection of the Burlingame treaty are entitled to the privileges, immunities and exemptions accorded the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation. We have treaties with many powers which permit their citizens and subjects to reside within the United States and carry on business under the same laws and regulations which are enforced against citizens of the United States. I think it may be doubted whether the provisions requiring personal registration and the taking out of passports, which are not imposed upon natives, can be required of the Chinese. Without expressing an opinion on that point I may invite the attention of-Congress to the fact that the system of personal registration and passports is undemocratic and hostile to the spirit of our institutions. I doubt the wisdom of putting an entering wedge of this kind into our laws. A nation like the United States, jealous of the liberties of its citizens, may well hesitate before it incorporates into its policy a system which is fast disappearing in Europe before the progress of liberal institutions. Wide experience has shown how futile such precautions are, and how easily passports may be borrowed, exchanged, or even forged by persons interested. If it is, nevertheless, thought that a passport is the most convenient way for identifying the Chinese entitled to the protection of the Burlingame treaty, it may still be doubted whether they ought to be required to register. It is certainly our duty under the Burlingame treaty to make their stay in the United States and the operation of the general laws upon them as nearly like that of our own citizens as we can consistently with our right to shut out the laborers. No good purpose is served m requiring them to register.

My attention has been drawn by the Chinese Minister to the fact that the act, as it now stands, makes no provision for the transit across the United States of Chinese subjects now residing in foreig-n countries. I think this point may well claim the attention of Congress in legislating upon this subject. I have said that good faith requires us to suspend the imm.gration of Chinese laborers for a less period than twenty years. I now add that good policy points in the same direction. Our intercourse with China is of recent date. Our first treaty with that power is not yet forty years old. It is only since we acquired California and established the great seat of commerce on the Pacific that we may be said to have broken down the walls which fenced that ancient monarchy. The Burlingame treaty naturally followed, and, under the spirit which inspired it, many thousands of Chinese laborers came to the United States. No one can say the country has not profited by their work. They were largely instrumental in constructing the railways which connect the Atlantic and Pacific. The States of the Pacific are full of evidences of their industry. Enterprises profitable to the capitalists and to the laborers of Caucasian origin would have been dormant but for them. The time has now come when it is supposed they are not needed, and when it is thought by Congress and by those most acquainted with the subject that it is best to try to get along without them. There may, however, be other sections of the country where this species of labor may be advantageously employed without interfering with the laborers of our own race. It may be a part of wisdom, as well as good faith, to fix the length of the experimental period with reference to this fact. Experience has shown that the trade of the East is the key to national wealth and influence. The opening of China to the commerce of the whole world has benefited no section of it more than the States of our own Pacific slope. The State of California and its great maritime ports especially have reaped enormous advantages from this source. Blessed with an exceptional climate, enjoying an unrivaled harbor, with the riches of a great agricultural and mining State at its rear, and the wealth of- the whole Union pouring into it over its lines of railways, San Francisco has an incalculable future, if our friendly and amicable relations with Asia remain undisturbed. It needs no argument to show the policy which we now propose to adopt must have a direct tendency to repel Oriental nations from us, and drive their trade and commerce into more friendly hands. It may bo that the great and paramount interest of protection of our labor irom Asiatic competition justifies us in the permanent' adoption of this policy, but it is wiser in the first place to make a shorter experiment, with the view hereafter of maintaining permanently only such features as time and experience may commend. I transmit herewith copies of papers relating to the recent treaty, which accompanied the confidential message of President Hayes to the Senate on the 10th of January, 1881, and also a copy of the memorandum respecting the act herewith returned, which was handed to the Secretary of State by the Chinese Minister in Washington. Chester A. Abthub. Executive Mansion, Washington, April 4, 1832. OBJECTIONS SUMMARIZED—THE PRESIDENT’S NOTES. Following are the memoranda attached to the veto message: 1. The time fixed in the bill, namely, twenty years, is unreasonable. The language of Article 1, that “laborers” shall not be absolutely prohibited from coming to the United States, and that, “ suspension shall be reasonable,” as well as the negotiatons, indicate that a brief period was intended. A total prohibition of the immigration of Chinese laborers into the United States for twenty years would, in my opinion, be unreasonable and a violation of the meaning and intent of the treaty. 2. The inclusion of “skilled labor” in the bill is an addition to the words and intent of the treaty. It will operate with harshness upon the class of Chinese merchants entitled to admission to the United States under the terms of the treaty. The shoe merchants and cigar merchants of China manufacture the goods they sell at their places of "business, and to shut out “skilled labor” would practically shut them out as well, since it would prevent them from carrying on their business in this country. A laundryman who keeps his shop and has a small capital with which to pros ecute his trade cannot in any just sense be termed a “ laborer.” and the merchant tailor comes in the same category. 3. The clauses of the bill relating to registration and passports are vexatious discrimination against Chinese residents and immigrations, when article 2 provides explicitly that they shall be entitled to all privileges conceded to the subjects of the most favored nation. The execution of these provisions of the bill will cause irritation, and, in case of loss of passport or certificate of registration, Chinese residents entitled to remain may be forcibly expelled from the country. 4. If the bill becomes a law it win leave an impression in China and its Government of the strangely misunderstood character of the trea y, or that Congress has violated some of its provisions, and this wfil tend to prejudice the intelligent classes against the United States Government and the people, whom they now greatly admire and respect 5. There is no provision in the bin for transit across the United States of Chinese subjects now residing in foreign countries. Large numbers of Chinese live in Cuba, Peru, and other countries, who cannot return home without crossing the territory of the United States or touching at San Francisco. To deny this privilege, it seems to me, is the violation of international law and the comity of nations, and, if the bill becomes a law it will in this respect result in great hard ship to many thousands of innocent Chinese in foreign countries.

Every man knows that one-half the stocks in the hands of speculators are bubbles, which will collapse with any sudden disaster. Suppose Gould or Vanderbilt should die, or either one or both should attempt to unload, where would be the thousands .of others who are risking their all upon margins ? It is the haste to get rich which endangers all interests by heedless speculation. Small things cease to be small when their effects ere mighty,