of Congress to this bill I am persuaded that their action will maintain the public duty and the public honor." And I am satisfied that even now if his excellency the President will ask the calm judgment of Congress to this subject that high body "will maintain the public duty and the public honor." In my note to your predecessor of January 26 I called attention to the assurance given by the ambassadors who negotiated the treaty of 1880, respecting the Chinese laborers in the United States, which you will allow me to repeat in this connection. They said: So far as those are concerned who, under treaty guaranty, have come to the United States, the Government recognizes but one duty, and that is to maintain them in the exercise of their treaty privileges against any opposition, whether it takes the shape of popular violence or of legislative enactment. Has not the time now arrived when this solemn promise should be redeemed? You will remember that the ambassadors were so earnest in this assurance that they inserted in the treaty the provisions that whenever the legislative measures enacted "are found to work hardships upon the subjects of China, the Chinese minister at Washington may bring the matter to the notice of the Secretary of State of the United States, who will consider the subject with him," and the ambassadors added the further assurance that the "Government of the United States would listen in the most just and friendly spirit to the representations of the Chinese Government through their minister in Washington." In my note of January 26 I suggested an appeal to Congress to undo the wrong and hardships which its action inflicted upon my countrymen; but with your intimate knowledge of your system of government, and with your earnest desire to deal justly and to "maintain the puplic duty and public honor," you may find a more efficacious and speedy method of satisfying the reasonable expectations of the Imperial Government. I regret that the considerations which I have felt it necessary to present have made the present note so lengthy, but the questions and interests involved are so important that my sense of duty would not allow me to omit anything which might tend to an honorable and just settlement, and secure the continuance of the friendly relations which have heretofore marked the intercourse of the two Governments. I improve, etc., CHANG YEN HOON. Mr. Chang Yen Hoon to Mr. Blaine. CHINESE LEGATION, Washington, D. C., July 10, 1889. (Received July 11.) SIR: According to section 6, of the act of Congress of July 5, 1884, every Chinese merchant entitled by the existing treaty (1880) between the Governments of China and the United States to come within the United States, shall obtain the permission of and be identified as so entitled by the Chinese Government, in each case to be evidenced by a certificate in the English language issued by said Government. I have now the honor to inclose for your perusal a form proposed by me, of the certificate above mentioned, and would deem it a favor if you will kindly inform me whether it is a proper one and conforms with the requirements of the said act of Congress; if so, I shall submit it to Tsung-li Yamên at Peking for its consideration and adoption, so that the local authorities of all the provinces along the coast of China may be instructed to issue a certificate, according to this form, with a Chinese translation thereof printed on the counterpart thereof, to any Chinese merchant who may apply for the same. Accept, etc., [Inclosure] Form of certificate. CHANG YEN HOON. This is to certify that whose description list is given below, has been granted permission by the Government of China to go to the United States; that his occupation is that of a merchant, in which he has been engaged for and that his present place of residence is merchant has been taels. Signed and sealed this years at -; that his special business as a and its estimated annual value amounts to dollars or SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 8th instant calling attention to the hardships entailed upon certain Chinese subjects by the provisions of the act of Congress of October 1, 1888, entitled "An act, a supplement to an act entitled 'An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese,' approved the sixth day of May, eighteen hundred and eighty-two," and to say in reply that the subject of your note shall receive the very careful and prompt attention of the Department. Accept, etc., WILLIAM F. WHARTON. Mr. Wharton to Mr. Chang Yen Hoon. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 10th instant, proposing a form of certificate whereby Chinese merchants may be permitted to visit this country, in conformity with the provisions of the act of Congress of July 5, 1884, section 6, and the treaty of November 16, 1880, between the United States and China. I have accordingly submitted your note and its accompaniment to the Secretary of the Treasury for an expression of his opinion thereon, and will take pleasure in apprising you of the tenor of his reply when received. Meanwhile I avail, etc., WM. F. WHARTON. Mr. Chang Yen Hoon to Mr. Blaine. [Telegram.] NEW YORK, July 19, 1889. I am informed that twelve Chinese laborers, arriving at New Orleans, destined for China, in transit through the United States, have been refused to land from steamer and detained by customs authorities. I claim that this is in violation of treaty as well as existing customs regulations, and I appeal to you to have instructions given to officials at New Orleans to allow them to pass in transit in accordance with Treasury Department circular of January 23, 1883. By reference to correspondence with this legation early in this year you will see Secretary Bayard decided, after consulting Attorney-General, that there was no impediment in act October 1st last against transit of Chinese laborers in conformity with Treasury circular 83. Under this decision the collector at New York has for several months past been allowing the transit through that port of Chinese laborers from Cuba to San Francisco. I think inquiring of customs officials at both these ports will show that Chinese in transit have faithfully observed the provisions of circular. It seems clear that act Cctober 1st has no application to transit. I am confident neither you nor President Harrison are disposed to give act greater application than language of Congress warrants, especially in violation of solemn treaty rights. A prompt decision is requested. CHANG YEN HOON. Mr. Wharton to Mr. Chang Yen Hoon. [Telegram.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, I have received your telegram of 19th instant relative to refusal of New Orleans customs authorities to permit landing of twelve Chinese laborers destined for China, in transit through United States. I have immediately submitted copy of telegram for consideration to Secretary of Treasury and will communicate his reply upon its receipt. WILLIAM F. WHARTON. Mr. Wharton to Mr. Chang Yen Hoon. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: As a further reply to your note of the 10th instant I have now the honor to acquaint you with the receipt of a letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, dated the 23d instant, saying that the cer tificate proposed to be issued by the Chinese Government in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the act of Congress approved July 5, 1884, and the treaty of November 17, 1880, between the United States and China, to enable Chinese merchants to visit the United States, was in the form submitted by your note satisfactory to the Treasury Department. Accept, etc., WM. F. WHARTON. Mr. Tsui Kwo Yin to Mr. Blaine. CHINESE LEGATION, Washington, October 16, 1889. (Received October 19.) SIR: I have received information, not of an official character, that some new measures of your excellency's Government have been adopted which it is reported are working hardship to the subjects of China, who seek to exercise the privilege guarantied to them by treaty stipulations of transit through the territory of the United States. Having resort to the provision contained in Article IV of the treaty of 1880 between our Governments, I beg of you to be so kind as to inform me at your earliest convenience whether any new legislative measures have been adopted by your Government in relation to the transit of Chinese subjects, and if so what is the character of those meas ures. I improve, etc., TSUI KWO YIN. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Tsui Kwo Yin. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR Referring to your excellency's note of the 16th instant, in which you inquire whether any new legislative measures have been adopted by the Government of the United States in relation to the transit of Chinese subjects through this country, I have the honor to inform you that no new legislation has been adopted on that subject. Accept, etc., JAMES G. BLAINE. Mr. Tsui Kwo Yin to Mr. Blaine. CHINESE LEGATION, Washington, D. C., November 5, 1889. (Received November 6.) SIR: In my note of the 16th ultimo I advised you that I had received information that some new measures of your excellency's Government had been adopted which, it was reported, was working hardship to the subjects of China seeking, in accordance with treaty stipulations, transit through the territory of the United States, and I asked you whether any new legislative measures had been adopted by your Government. You very promptly replied, under date of the 18th ultimo, that no legislative measures had been adopted on that subject, This answer has led me to call for more specific information respecting the new measures reported to me as working hardship to Chinese subjects in transit, in order that I might find an explanation of the apparent conflict between the reported measures and the explicit statement in your excellency's note. In reply to my inquiries, the Imperial Chinese consul in New York reports to me that your worthy colleague, the Secretary of the Treasury, has issued a new regulation requiring every Chinese subject desiring to pass in transit through the United States to cause to be deposited with the collector of customs at the place of arrival a bond of $200 before he shall be permitted to exercise the privilege, guarantied by treaty, of transit through the territory of the United States. For further information as to this requirement, a printed copy of this new regulation is inclosed with this note. The consul states that the large Chinese population in the island of Cuba find it most convenient in going thence to and from China to pass through the United States, and that many of them have been accustomed, prior to this regulation, to take the American line of steamers and come to New York, and thence proceed on their journey by railroad to San Francisco. Since the new regulation has been issued the American Steam-ship Company has notified the consul that neither it nor the railroad transportation lines with which it has connection can furnish the bond required, and the company can not carry any more Chinese laborers in transit from Cuba to the port of New York unless the Secretary of the Treasury will evoke the new regulation. In this state of affairs the consul reports that the Chinese subjects in Cuba who desire to pass in transit through the port of New York will be deprived of the privilege guarantied to them by the treaty. I was much gratified to receive the assurance in your note of the 18th ultimo that no legislation had been adopted on the subject of the transit of Chinese subjects through the United States, and I am at a loss to understand by what authority the Secretary of the Treasury can adopt a regulation which has the effect to nullify the treaty. If I have been correctly informed as to your system of government, an executive officer can not enact laws, much less nullify a treaty. I understand that your Congress passes the laws and the executive officers enforce them. In accordance with the requirements of Article IV of the treaty of 1880 as to immigration, it has been the practice of your Department to send to this legation the new laws of Congress and the executive regulations respecting them. I have examined carefully these laws and do not find that they relate in any way to Chinese subjects in transit through the United States. I also find that I am sustained in my conclusion by the learned law officers of your own Government. When this question of transit was under consideration between your Department and this legation in 1882, the Attorney-General was consulted, and he expressly stated: I do not think that a Chinese laborer coming to this country merely to pass through it can be considered as within the prohibition of the law, he being neither an immigrant nor a laborer coming here as laborer. Opinion of Attorney-General, December 26, 1882.) And again quite recently the subject was before your Government, and the Solicitor of the Treasury, under date April 20 last, said: # The evil sought to be remedied by the modification of the treaty above cited (treaty of 1880) and the law was the enormous influx of Chinese laborers and their continued residence among us. It was to secure these results that our Government asked the modification of the treaty, and in the negotiations to that end this was the limit only to which we asked this friendly power to go. The legislation had in view the evil. The passage of a traveler through our country is no part of this evil. * |