|
|
|
OUR
RELATIONS WITH CHINA |
|
Harper’s
Weekly, October 6, 1888, page 746 (Editorial) |
|
|
|
The Chinese government has rejected the new treaty. The
treaty provided for the practical exclusion of Chinese laborers. They were not to be
permitted to return unless they had here a lawful wife, child, or parent, property of
value of $1000, or debt of like amount due and pending settlement. The amendments to the
treaty proposed by the Senate were these:
To Article 1: "And the
prohibition [of Chinese laborers] shall extend to the return of Chinese laborers who are
not now in the United States, whether holding return certificates under existing laws or
not."
To Article 2: "And no such Chinese laborer shall be
permitted to enter the United States by land or sea without producing to the proper
officer of the customs the return certificates herein required."
|
|
|
|
|
|
The correspondence published by the State Department shows
that as early as January, 1887, the Chinese Government proposed to prohibit the emigration
of Chinese laborers to this country, and to allow the return of those who had been here
only in the case of those who had left here family or property, and then only under strict
conditions. The Chinese minister, Chang Yen Hoon, in April, 1887, accepted the treaty and
the Senate amendments, which he did not find incompatible with it.
Upon the recent rumor of rejection, the complete exclusion
act was hurried through the House and passed by the Senate, despite the wise interposition
of Mr. Sherman for decent delay to ascertain the facts. The essential amendment is this:
"It shall be unlawful for any Chinese laborer who
shall at any time heretofore have been or who may now or hereafter be a resident within
the United States, and who shall have departed or shall depart therefrom, and shall not
have returned before the passage of this act, to return to the United States."
|
|
|
|
|
|
This provision practically abrogates existing treaty
stipulations, and with any other power than China would lead probably to war. For there
are now three or four steamers on the way from China with passengers who, when they
sailed, were entitled under the treaty to land in this country, and who will be prevented
from landing should the President sign the bill. The President will probably recommend
such amendments as will allow reasonable warning, and also suitable indemnity for the
outrages upon the Chinese at the far West. The passage of the exclusion act by Congress
was a violation of existing treaty stipulations, and no self-respecting government could
enter into further conventions with a state which showed no respect for treaty
stipulations. The wisdom of the exclusion is undeniable, but the friendly disposition of
China, and its declared purpose of prohibiting emigration and return except under
stringent conditions, which would have checked effectually any serious increase of
Chinese, should have prevented us from the hasty and discreditable action of the exclusion
bill. |
|
|
|
|
|
That bill is an offence which we owe to the Presidential
election. It is a bid for the vote of the Pacific coast, and it shows the grave misfortune
of important legislation upon foreign relations during a Presidential campaign. The
Chinese question is but one aspect of the whole subject of immigration. The reasons for
regulating it carefully are of many kinds, moral, political, and social. The exclusion
treaty and the foreign contract labor bill both aim to prevent the lowering of the
standard of living among the masses of the American people, and to check the growth of
alien political sentiment and tendency. The United States can remain a refuge for the
oppressed only by maintaining the safeguards of liberty, and that can be done only by a
wise regulation of immigration. The condition in which the action of Congress leaves our
Chinese relations is, however, not final. Those relations now rest upon the Burlingame
treaty, which permits our presence in China only at the pleasure of the government, and it
remains to be seen to what point the reciprocity of unfriendly action may be carried. |
|
|
|
|
|
Harper’s
Weekly, October 6, 1888, page 746 (Editorial) |
|
|
|
|
|
This
site is brought to you by…
Website and all Content © 1998-1999 HarpWeek, LLC
Please report problems to webmaster@harpweek.com |