THE CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAW OF 1884. In the next Congress there were several bills introduced amending this act of 1882. One of these, that of Mr. Henley," of California, was reported favorably by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The law had been intended, by its originators, to exclude Chinese laborers, but it had failed to do this and required revision to conform to the intent of its framers. To substantiate this view, the committee cited the case decided by Justices Lowell and Nelson, of the United States circuit court in Massachusetts, where a Chinese laborer, born on the island of Hongkong after its cession to Great Britain, was held not to be within the provisions of the act. To avoid a similar situation the act was extended to all Chinese, subjects of whatever country. To prevent evasions of the law through the possible interpretations of words 'merchants' and 'travelers,' together with the notorious capabilities of the lower classes of Chinese for perjury," the certificates of the exempt classes were made more elaborate, and the word "merchant" was defined to exclude hucksters, peddlers, and fishermen. The certificates were made the only evidence admissible to establish a right to reenter. These certificates also had to be verified by the United States diplomatic officer at the port of departure. 66 All attempts to make the bill less severe were futile, and it passed the House by a vote of 184 to 12; not voting, 125. The Senate passed it by a vote of 43 to 12; not voting, 21. It was approved July 5, 1884. THE CHINESE TREATY OF 1888. In 1886 China of her own accord proposed to prohibit the emigration of her laborers to the United States, and also to prohibit the return of any laborers who had gone back to China. She asked that negotiations be entered into for a treaty embodying such provisions. Such a treaty was agreed to and signed by the representatives of the two countries on March 12, 1888. The treaty as signed provided that Chinese laborers should be excluded for twenty years. No Chinese laborer returning to China was to be allowed to reenter the United States unless he left a wife. child, or parent, or property to the value of $1,000. To avail himself of this right he had to return within a year. Chinese subjects other than laborers had to obtain certificates of identification from consular representatives of the United States at ports of departure. As in the earlier treaty, the Chinaman lawfully residing here was granted all the privileges of citizens of the most-favored nations. Finally the indemnity fund of $276,619.75 which was asked for losses and injuries suffered by the Chinese in various anti-Chinese riots in the Pacific coast States was included. Before ratifying it the Senate changed two articles of the treaty. By the first, all Chinese laborers not then in the United States, but who held return certificates under existing laws, were not to be allowed to enter. The other required the possession of the certificate of identification to insure entry. THE CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAW OF 1888. Expecting an immediate ratification of the treaty by China. bill to prohibit the coming of Chinese laborers according to the stipulations of the treaty just ratified. It was passed by the Senate on August 8, and by the House August 20, 1888, and was approved September 13, 1888. No ratification of the treaty followed, however, and on receipt of unofficial reports that China had rejected it, Congress passed a bill prohibiting the coming to the United States of Chinese laborers." President Cleveland withheld his approval of the bill for some time, but finally, on the refusal of China to ratify the treaty unless the term of years was made shorter, and other conditions were changed, on October 1, 1888, he signed it. In his message accompanying the approval President Cleveland justified his action, claiming that China's delay was a breach of the existing treaty, and such a breach as justified Congress in legislatively dealing with the matter. He recommended the payment of the indemnity provided by the terms of the treaty and he also recommended that the act should not apply to Chinese already on their way. The indemnity was paid, but the recommendation respecting those on the way was not heeded. CHINESE LEGISLATION OF 1892. On December 10, 1891, Senator Dolph, of Oregon, introduced a bill' providing that the act of May 6, 1882, should be continued in force for another ten years. This bill was passed by the Senate on February 19, 1892. Representative Geary, of California, reported a bill' absolutely prohibiting the coming of Chinese persons, except diplomatists, to the United States. All Chinese in the United States were to be obliged to take out certificates, so that the authorities could know their whereabouts. Failure to procure this certificate meant deportation. The Senate bill was not favored in the House and the more stringent Geary bill was passed on April 4, 1892. When it went to the Senate the Dolph bill was substituted and a conference asked for. The report of the conference committee was finally adopted and the resulting bill was approved the day before the expiration of the existing law. The law of 1892 contained part of the provisions of the Senate bill and part of those of the House bill. By its terms all existing laws were continued in force for ten years. All Chinese laborers within the United States were required to secure certificates within one year, and if any was found without such certificate he was to be liable to deportation. Upon the passage of this act certain Chinese persons employed three prominent attorneys to render an opinion upon the constitutionality of the law as a whole. Each of these attorneys expressed the opinion that the law was unconstitutional, but on May 15, 1893, the Supreme Court declared it constitutional. Having relied upon the opinions of their attorneys the Chinese did not register. When the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered the year provided by the statute for certification was ended, and there were some 90,000 unregistered Chinamen in the country, all liable to deportation. a S. 3304, 50th Cong., 1st sess. b25 Stat., p. 476. See pp. 788-791 of this volume. e S. 540, 52d Cong., 1st sess. f H. R. 6185, 52d Cong., 1st sess. 927 Stat., p. 25. See pp. 791-794 of this volume. A After considering the matter and seeing that it would cost more than $6,000,000 to deport them, Congress decided it would be more just and economical to extend the period for obtaining certificates. Accordingly a law was passed, and approved on November 3, 1893, granting an additional six months for the taking out of certificates." THE CHINESE TREATY OF 1894. Shortly after the passage of these acts China asked for the opening of negotiations looking to a new treaty. Negotiations were successful, and on December 8, 1894, a treaty was proclaimed. This provided for the exclusion of all Chinese laborers for a term of ten years. Those going back to China were allowed to return here, providing they had a wife, child, or parent, or property worth $1,000 somewhere in the United States. Registration was still required. It practically covered the same grounds as existing legislation, except that the act of October 1, 1888, refusing to Chinese laborers the right to return, was repealed. After the annexation of Hawaii on July 7, 1898, Chinese immigration to these islands was declared to be regulated by the laws of the United States. On April 30, 1900, provision was made for the registering of all the Chinese in these islands, and Chinese living there were forbidden to enter continental United States. THE CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAW OF 1902. As the time came for the lapse of the period of exclusion provided by the act of 1892 interest in the exclusion laws again became intense, especially on the Pacific coast. A convention held in San Francisco on November 22, 1901, and composed of more than 1,000 representatives of county supervisors, city councils, and trade, commercial, and civic organizations, declared for a continuance of the exclusion laws. A Chinese minister, in a letter to the Secretary of State, dated December 10, 1901, brought the matter to the attention of the United States, "urging an adjustment of the questions involved more in harmony with the friendly relations of the two Governments." On the 16th of January, 1902, Senator Mitchell, of Oregon, introduced a bill to prohibit the coming of Chinese into the United States and regulating their residence within her territories. A similar bill was introduced in the House by Mr. Kahn, of California. On March 26, 1902, the Committee on Foreign Affairs reported Mr. Kahn's bill with a substitute. Several provisions of the bill were stricken out because they were considered unconstitutional. The committee proposed excluding all Chinese laborers, but wanted to avoid any discourtesy or annoyance to any genuine merchants, students, etc.. on the ground that this attitude was necessary in the interests of commerce with China. It also struck out a clause forbidding the employment of Chinese on ships carrying the American flag on the 428 Stat., p. 7. See pp. 794 and 795 of this volume. 28 Stat., p. 1210. See p. 795. The memorial of this convention, also the arguments of the American Federation of Labor, entitled "Meat vs. Rice," are found in S. Doc. No. 137, 57th Cong., 1st sess. e S. Doc. No. 162, 57th Cong., 1st sess. 1 S. 2960 (S. Rept. No. 776) and H. Rept. No. 9330, 27th Cong., 1st s H. R. 13031 (H. Rept. No. 1231), 57th Cong., 1st sess. Pacific Ocean, because of the injury that would accrue to American shipping. Following in the main the committee's recommendations, the bill passed the House. The clause relating to seamen, however, was restored and all laws were extended to the insular possessions. In the Senate the Mitchell and Kahn bills were considered too severe, and before passing that body they were amended by providing that all existing laws be reenacted, to continue in force until a new treaty should be negotiated. As amended the bill passed by a vote of 76 to 1; not voting, 11. Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, who cast the single opposing vote, still upheld his early position that he could not support legislation which discriminated against race. The House refused to concur in the amendments of the Senate, but the report of the conference was adopted in the Senate and the House on April 28. The President approved it April 29, 1902.o THE CHINESE-EXCLUSION LAW OF 1904. Upon the refusal of China to continue the treaty of 1894 after 1904, on April 27, 1904, Congress again reenacted, extending and continuing, without modification, limitation, or condition, all laws then in force in so far as they were not inconsistent with treaty obligations. By the act of 1904 all existing legislation was continued in force until otherwise provided by law. All legislation was extended to the insular possessions, and Chinese immigration from these islands to the United States, or from one island group to another, was prohibited, although moving from island to island of the same group was allowed. Certificates of residence were also required in the insular possessions. The law of 1904 is still in force. During 1906 the question of Japanese immigration became acute, and the Pacific States demanded exclusion legislation for the Japanese of the same sort as existed for the Chinese. This was finally settled in the passport provision inserted in the immigration law of February 20, 1907. This provision authorized the President to refuse admission to any aliens making use of passports to the insular possessions, the Canal Zone, or any country other than the United States, to gain admission to the continental United States. The President in his proclamation of March 14, 1907, availed himself of this provision and excluded "Japanese or Korean laborers, skilled or unskilled, who have received passports to go to Mexico, Canada, or Hawaii, and come therefrom." To give this full force, an understanding with Japan was reached that the existing policy of discouraging the emigration of her subjects to this country should be continued. This agreement, by which the two Governments cooperate to secure an effective enforcement of the regulation contemplates that the Japanese Government shall issue passports to continental United States only to such of its subjects as are nonlaborers, or are laborers who, in coming to the continent, seek to resume a formerly acquired domicile, to join a parent, wife, or children residing there, or to assume active control of an already possessed interest in a farming enterprise in this country. @32 Stat., pt. 1, p. 176. See pp. 796 and 797 of this volume. 33 Stat., p. 428. See pp. 796 and 797 of this volume. © See p. 732. d See pp. 757 and 758. e Report of United States Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1908, p. 125. |