|
|
|
A BREACH OF
NATIONAL FAITH |
|
Harpers
Weekly, March 9, 1879, page 182 (Editorial) |
|
|
|
Congress
has announced to the world that the United States intend to break
treaties at their pleasure. The peremptory abrogation of the Chinese
treaty is a flagrant breach of public faith which sullies the good
name of the country, and puts every other nation upon its guard in
undertaking any dealings with us which depend upon our honor. It is
not only the national honor, however, which is concerned, but a most
important commercial interest. As we disregard the parts of the
treaty that we do not like, China will do the same. The treaty is,
therefore, at an end, if the bill be not vetoed. If it be vetoed,
all other nations have, nevertheless, been notified that Congress
holds all treaties subject to its discretion. It is true that a
treaty has only the force of a law of the land, and that Congress
may repeal any law. But a treaty in its nature is an honorable
understanding between governments, made in a way which recognizes a
certain method of withdrawal from the engagement. It is not
contended that a nation is bound to adhere to a treaty when it
proves to be seriously injurious to its welfare. But it is bound to
deal with other nations as one honest man would deal with another in
annulling a contract of honor. No treaty can be construed as holding
us to submit passively while our civilization is overwhelmed by
barbarism. But to argue that the presence of a hundred and ten or
twenty thousand Chinese upon the Pacific coast is such an imminent
peril to American society and civilization as to justify the
peremptory abrogation of a treaty, without notice or attempted
friendly modification, is insulting to common-sense. It was stated
in the debate that the return of immigrants to China during the last
year or two had been as great as the movement this way. Nothing
whatever was said to show the need of urgency in the matter, even
conceding the force of all that was said by Mr. Sargent. But such
was the determination "to put it through" that even the
very questionable amendment of Mr. Conkling, providing substantially
for a delay of action until notice could be served on China, was
rejected. There has been no debate in the Senate for a long time
which was so earnest and so interesting. Mr. Edmundss protest
just before the vote was very impressive and emphatic, and Mr. Hoar,
in a few forcible sentences, described the situation precisely: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Mr.
President, I agree with the Senator from California in the
desire to accomplish all that he says he desires to accomplish
by this legislation. I agree that the cooly trade should be
broken up. I agree that laborers importednot coming in as
immigrants, but imported by their employersmay properly be
excluded from our ports. I agree that contracts for terms of
time by capital for the employment of human beingscontracts
in which the laborer has no volitionare illegal and
immoral, and should be broken up. But this legislation does
not undertake alone or simply to do that. It starts by a
denial of the obligation of national faith. It starts by the
abrogation at the mere will of one party of a solemn treaty.
It starts by relieving the Emperor of China of obligations
upon which depend the rights and the property and the business
of large numbers of our own fellow-citizens, who are as much
entitled to the protection of the government in their business
as any other class of our fellow-citizens; and it does all
these things without the slightest necessity. It does all
these things because the people of California tell us that in
some remote future a population which in thirty years has left
with its immigration, according to their own account, but a
hundred thousand excess of the immigrants who have staid above
those of the emigrants who have returned, will some time in
distant ages swamp their civilization." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The argument for
the bill was a transparent pretense. It asserted that Chinese
immigration was undesirable, and therefore that the treaty providing
for it, and providing upon terms suggested by ourselves, should be
summarily broken. But the argument does not hold together. Even if
it be wise to restrain the immigration, it is neither wise nor
honest to break faith. The general question of Asiatic immigration
involves the most fundamental principles, and is not to be decided
in a few hours hot debate. There is no doubt that the Chinese and
the Anglo-Saxon do not readily assimilate. But our own national and
local laws make the assimilation still more difficult. Mr. Blaine
said that he was opposed to the admission of great numbers of people
whom we forbade to become citizens. Yet the treaty permitting the
admission was made after the prohibition of naturalization. From Mr.
Blaines point of view his argument was a reason for urging the
abrogation of the treaty in a fair and recognized manner, not for
summarily breaking it without the pretense of reason for the
indecent haste. Indeed, throughout the debate, there was no real
reason whatever advanced for the action contemplated. The
apprehension of a Chinese deluge of immigration is not new. Fourteen
years ago, Dr. John W. Draper, in his Civil Policy of America,
considered the subject carefully, and held that the Pacific coast
was destined hereafter to be the scene of an active Asiatic
immigration. The Chinese population of California in 1860 was nearly
35,000. Dr. Draper thought that their view of America as a temporary
home sprang from the natural timidity of early adventurers. But as
they came with more settled intentions, the universal but temporary
antipathy between different races would yield, and the general
principles of the republic powerfully prevail. The facility of
acquiring land would be a temptation, he thought that no laboring
class could withstand. But while Dr. Draper considered the Chinese
advent inevitable, he regarded it with anxiety, and foresaw that
with Eastern blood would come Eastern thoughts and Eastern habits.
This was before the naturalization legislation of 1870 which
prohibited the citizenship of the Chinese, or the school laws of
California which forbade including Mongolian children in the
apportionment. Dr. Drapers advice was that the Chinese should be
fused as rapidly as possible in the population. The policy adopted
was the absolute prohibition of fusion. As to the actual number, the
Alta Almanac, from which Mr. Howland quoted, gives as the
annual increase of arrivals over departures between four and five
thousand. During thirty years the gain of arrivals over departures
has been less than 140,000, leaving about 100,000 as the present
number on this continent. |
|
|
|
|
|
A Matter of Taste
March 15, 1879, page 212
|
|
|
|
Blaine Language
March 15, 1879, page 216
|
|
|
|
|
These
plain figures, in themselves an unanswerable argument against haste
or any breach of international comity force the question home, what
is the secret of this summary and hurried action? The answer is
equally plainthe Presidential election. California is strongly
opposed to the Chinese immigration, and the party that defeats the
bill would be defeated in the election. This is the reason openly
stated by well-informed observers on the spot, and made probable by
the total want of force or point in the speeches for the bill. Mr.
Eustis, the Democratic Senator from Louisiana, pointed out the
singular position of Republican Senators who, in the actual Southern
conflict between the black man and the white man, take the side of
the black man, but in a contest not yet begun, and only to arise, if
ever, in a remote future, take part with the white man against the
yellow. It was one of the sayings of Mr. Douglas, in the old
antislavery debate, that he was for the white man as against the
negro, and for the negro as against the alligator. He was bitterly
denounced for declaring that ours was a white mans government.
Was Douglas, then, after all, a Republican of the day after
to-morrow? These, however, are questions that were not before the
Senate. The sole question there was, shall a treaty solemnly
ratified with a friendly power be violated, offensively, summarily,
without taking any preliminary step which fair and honest comity
requires? We are glad that, with two or three exceptions, the whole
Republican weight of the Senate insisted upon fair dealing with the
Chinese government. The bill was carried by a vote of 39, of which
18 were Republicans; and the minority was 27, of which 17 were
Republicans. |
|
|
|
|
|
Harpers
Weekly, March 9, 1879, page 182 (Editorial) |
|
|
|
|
|
This
site is brought to you by
Website and all Content © 1998-1999 HarpWeek, LLC
Please report problems to webmaster@harpweek.com |