~ START MICROFILMED 1985 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - BERKELEY GENERAL LIBRARY BERKELEY, CA 94720 COOPERATIVE PRESERVATION MICROFILMING PROJECT THE RESEARCH LIBRARIES GROUP, INC. Funded by THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES THE ANDREW W. MELLON FOUNDATION Reproductions may not be made without permission. ~~ CU-B SN oo8+¢-5 THE PRINTING MASTER FROM WHICH THIS REPRODUCTION WAS MADE IS HELD BY THE MAIN LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CA 94720 FOR ADDITIONAL REPRODUCTION REQUEST MASTER NEGATIVE NUMBER gc-33¢42 AUTHOR: Everett, William. TITLE: Amendment of the Chinese exclusion aet. DATE: 1893 VOLUME cau JT MASTER $5- No. C°F% NEG. NO. 38%2 Fo J LED 837 House of Feuresentutives, Seturdey, Octoter 14, how ll oad . » | Everett, ¥Willicn. iL ‘5 ri + ~f nn 2auE rey Ud the Chinree exclucicen act. Spgecy of Uone Willier Everett, of Lessschurette, in th i i { i 1593, Veshinegten, n.p., 1893. 3p. 22 l=Zcnm. : Cover title. i FILMED AND PROCESSED BY LIBRARY PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CA 94720 0662 DATE 1 1] 85 Jog No. 8|6 { REDUCTION RATIO § DOCUMENT ‘SOURCE THE BANCROFT LIBRARY | 10 “ie js ee flz2 I 22 Ec = = [lg fli No On no ll MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL 1010a ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2) LLL GHEE ETH | ! 2 ! [ { 3 1 | ! 4 Y | viel! V | Lz LLL fl 1 METRIC 1 AMENDMENT OF THE CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT. SPEECH HON. WILLIAM EVERETT, OF MASSACHUSETTS, a i E § H ] 5 ia 1% | i b [3 ] Id Jo | 0 a % Le 8 i] 4 i | id I: Fé | ) ] F HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1893. WASHINGTON. 1893. 5 EW Rs os Ri (27 | RE inpriliiireEipyzis SPEECH oF AON. WILLIAM EVERETT. The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 3687) to amend an act entitled ‘An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States,” approved May 5, 1892— Mr. EVERETT said: Mr. SPEAKER: I approach this subject, as I trust I shall ap- proach every subject in the House as long as I have the honor to be a member of it, with diffidence, more especially because my name has been connected with the proposed legislation more closely than I had ever expected it would be. I have been, in public and in private, charged with all sorts of propositions which I never introduced and which I should hesitate to intro- duce. I heard itsaid, for instance, that I had introduced a bill to repeal the Geary law. I have done no such thing. I have heard it said also that Iintroduceda bill to appropriate $500,000 to carry out this section of the Geary law. Neither have I done anything of that kind. The bill, sir, which was reported by the Committee on For- eign Affairs, of which I have the honor to be a member, seems to me to raise a very simple question which can be settled very briefly if gentlemen will; but which has beensomewhat obscured by the remarks made upon it by the various speakers who have taken part in this debate. Gentlemen have argued as if we were taking up the whole question of the relations of our Chi- nese denizens to our own people; as if we were to consider from the bottom, all the past, the present, and the possible legisla- tion on that subject; in short, sir, as if the committee had brought forward a bill to perfect, to complete, an answer to the great Chinese problem. Such, Mr. Speaker, I need not say is not the case. I was not a member of this House when the Scott act of the 1st of October, 1888, or the later act of the 5th of May, 1892, was passed. But I have understood from older members that there was very little discussion or debate on eitherof those acts; and it might be said by opponents of them that there had not been a fair time allowed for the discussion of those acts. I should think, sir, that when those acts were passed so very speedily would have been the time to discuss the entire relations of our Chinese residents to our own citizens, to have gone into the question of labor and the questions of morality, and not to defer discussion until after those acts had been passed, and passed in a very short time. 634 3 4 I think thatthe question has been correctly stated by my friend from Ohio [Mr. OUTHWAITE], to whom I gave a portion of my time. It was stated also by the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. MCCREARY], who opened this debate, that unless this suspensory act is passed we shall be’ under compulsion, we shall have no alternative from instantly using all the means at our command to deport from the country all the Chinese that are residents in our borders and have not registered nor conformed with the act. Now, sir, I can not believe that that was contemplated by the original act of the 5th of May, 1892. Several gentlemen from the Pacific coast, and the member from New York [Mr. BART- LETT] besides, have urged upon us that is the right and the best thing to do. The gentleman from California (Mr. MAGUIRE], who last spoke, and whom I am happy to recognize as a native of my own State, although a resident of California, has pressed upon us that immediate deportation is the right and desirable thing to do in the execution and fulfillment of the registration clauses of the Geary act. But, sir, if I understood correctly the distinguished author of that act, who addressed us immediately after the chairman, it was not the intention of that act to cause an extensive deporta- tion; the intention was to protect the Chinese who had acquired the right to remain in the country, and, as he said, to furnish a satisfactory method of identification by which they might not incur the sentence of deportation which belonged properly to those who had no right to remain in this country. Now, sir, this is not the only case in the world where an act that might have two results unexpectedly leads to that one of the two results which was not chiefly in anticipation. I do not believe that with the funds at our disposal, with the state of public opinion in many parts of the country—an erroncous, if you please, a mistaken opinion, an opinion founded on imperfect knowledge, if you please, but in the face of the strong public opinion against the act at all, in the face of the remonstrance of a friendly power—I do not believe it would be practicable; Ido not believe it would be approved or the right thing to proceed immediately to deport over 86,000 people, when the original act did not contemplate any such design. The question of the funds has been somewhat discussed, and I understand from the best authority that the state of the case was this: That when the Supreme Court had finally decided that the Geary act was constitutional, the amount of funds remain- ing of the original appropriation was not sufficient to carry it out in all its provisions, and that the Secretary of the Treas- ury justly believed, as has been stated by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OUTHWAITE], that precedence must be given to those clauses which were to stop the further immigration of Chinese, and that these limited funds should be appropriated first to pre- vent more coming in and not to deport those who had been recognized as having a right to remain; therefore it was that the original instruction came from him, and not from the At- torney-General, that further proceedings with a view to deporta- tion should be stayed, and that the funds should first be used for the removal of those who are coming from time to time. At 634 wei Banca Te Re SA se si BR hh, 5 a later period, it appears, if I am not mistaken, that the Attor- ney-General was not, as has been stated, unwilling to emplo, the funds which were at his disposal for carrying out the judicial portion of the proceedings. It seems to me that that is shown by the telegram which the Attorney-General sent on'the 9th of September, 1893, and which may be found in Executive Document No. 9, Fifty-third Con- gress, first session: The following telegram was sent to the United States marshals for the northern and southern districts of California: Instructions heretofore given do not apply to warrants of arrest of China- men under section 6 of Geary act issued by a court, which are to be ex- ecuted by yourself and deputies in the ordinary course. Deportation orders in such cases are also to be executed to the extent of available funds. Amount being small, report at once number of cases in yourdistrict in which court warrants have been applied for or granted. That, sir, seems to me to answer the charge which has been made here that the Department of Justice has done nothing to carry out the provisions of the Geary act. Mr. WILSON of Washington. Has the gentleman a copy of the telegram sent by the Attorney-General to the United States district attorney in the State of Washington, instructing him not to enforce what is known as the Geary act? Mr. EVERETT. I have not, sir. Mr. WILSON of Washington. I have read it. Mr. EVERETT. I have heard that there is such a telegram, but I have not read it. Mr. LOUD. Does not the enforcement referred to in the tel- egram of the Attorney-General which the gentleman has just read relate to the law applicable to Chinamen who had entered the country illegally rather than to those who were here legally? Mr. EVERETT. I have already stated that I understand that the Secretary of the Treasury, from whom the funds mustcome, took the ground that that was to be the prior use of the funds that he could transfer to the Department of Justice for this gen- eral purpose. Mr. LOUD. The gentleman has alluded to a statement which I made. I stated that the instruction of the Department had been, not to enfore the provisions of the Geary act, but to enforce the provisions of acts that had been in operation for ten years. Ithink, if the gentleman will examine, he will find that that state- ment was correct. Mr. EVERETT. I merely take the words as I find them here. The document is known, and will appear as part of my remarks. Mr. GRAY. What is the document? Mr. EVERETT. Executive Document No. 9of this Congress. Mr. GEARY. That is the answer of Mr. Olney to the resolu- - tion of inquiry. Mr. EVERETT. Thatis theanswer of Mr. Olney to the House resolution. Mr. GEARY. You do not claim, do you, that Mr. Olney, in his answer to this House, pretended to send us all the letters or instructions that he had sent to his subordinates? Mr. EVERETT. I do not. Mr. GEARY. Why did not he do that? What right had he 634 6 to assume that he knew what we wanted and what we did not want? Mr. EVERETT. You must apply to him for ananswer to that question. Iwas merelyreplying to the assertion thatthe A ttor- ney-General had done nothing to execute the Geary act. I have read this telegram to show that he has done something. Mr. LOUD. The Attorney-General most emphatically states in all his instructions that his subordinates are directed to re- frain from executing that portion of the Geary act known as the sixth section. Mr. EVERETT. I have so heard, and I have also understood from the Attorney-General that that was because the Secretary of the Treasury, from whom the funds come, considering that they were very limited and could not possibly be used to execute all the clauses of the act, thought that precedence belonged to those clauses which were designed to prevent new immigration. Mr. GEARY. Doesnot the gentleman know that as early as September 3 the Secretary of the Treasury notified the Attorney- General that he had $17,000 that he might draw upon for the purpose of enforcing the sixth section of this act? Mr. EVERETT. I have heard so. Mr. GEARY. And do you not know that since that time the Attorney-General has refused to use any portion of that money, and has refused or failed to answer the telegrams of the marshal of California asking for remittances with which to enforce that law? Mr. EVERETT. I am not aware of that fact. Mr. GEARY. I state that to be the fact. Now, that being the fact, was the Attorney-General justified in that action, in the opinion of the gentleman? Mr. EVERETT. I am not raising the question of whether he was justified in any particular action. I am simply replying to the statement which was made here, as I understood, that he had never done anything toward enforcing any of the provisions of the Geary act. It seems to me that he has done something. Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to the third reason why there might naturally be delay in carrying out the provisions of this act, and that I put upon the ground that there inevitably would be, as there were, remonstrances from the Chinese minister against what he believed and what his countrymen believed to be the oppressive operation of this act. Much has been said about that, and strong phrases have been used about our * truck- ling ” to the Chinese nation, about our subjecting our legislation to the will of China, and we have been called upon to show our independence and to show that the legislation of the United States should always be independent of the views of any foreign nation. Now, that kind of language, Mr. Speaker—I said so in my speech on the repeal of the Sherman actand I say so again—that kind of language is always extremely unfortunate. It is calcu- lated to raise most unnecessary and improper issues. It appar- ently takes the ground that the United States is not one of the nations of the earth, that we stand out in some peculiar and un- natural position. Why, Mr. Speaker. it is the right and the duty of the foreign minister of any nation to any other nation to 634 Wr cael = erase ——— ee. 7 remonstrate against any act which he deems to be oppressive to his own people. It is the right and the duty of the Secretary of State, or the corresponding officer in any government, to listen to those remonstrances; and it is the right and duty of the Secre- tary of State, if he sees in the remonstrances of the foreign min- ister any cause for believing that our legislation is oppressive, 10 oak through proper channels to have that legislation mod- ified. Sir, whatever may be the degradation of the Chinese in California, whatever may be the immoral effect that they may have dpon our young people, they are subjects and citizens of the Emperor of China; and if they are the meanest and basest of his subjects, still he has the eternal right, by the law of nations, to protect them, as far as may be in the power of his diplomatic agents, against any legislation that he may consider oppressive. There is no way in which a nation can maintain a higher and a nobler position than in endeavoring to extend its protect- ing arm over the basest of its subjects as well as the highest. On this point I would like to read from an opinion of Attorney- General Bates; and I read his opinion with the more satisfaction because the member from California who spoke second in the debate alluded to Attorney-General Bates as a man who knew singularly well what his duty was, and was prepared to carry it out under most adverse circumstances. The opinion from which I read was given in the case of the Teresita, and may be found on pages 349 and 350 of the tenth volume of the Opinions of the Attorneys-General. Attorney-General Baies says: Consistently with this I am aware that in the diplomatic intercourse of friendly nations occasions do often arise for remonstrances and reclama- tions in behalf of the subjects of one of the friendly powers against the harsh operation of the known laws of the other and the legal judgments of its courts. There are, I am informed, many precedents of this sort, not con- fined to cases arising under the maritime and international law, but em- bracing also cases entirely internal and municipal, such as the rights of den- izens and the rights of inheritance, succession, administra tion, and distri- bution of estates. In all such cases the question is, not whether the act com- plained of be lawful or unlawful, but whether the law itself, as administered by the judicial tribunals which alone have power to administer it, does or does not operate oppressively upon the subjects of a friendly power. The solution of such questions, it seems to me, must depend upon considerations of the broadest equity, and of that generous comity which ought to govern the intercourse of friendly nations, and the discussion of these delicate mat- ters seems to be peculiarly within your province— He is addressing the Secretary of State— as the accredited organ of the nation, in speaking to foreign powers and, for that reason, I abstain from venturing to discuss the subject. Such re- monstrances and reclamations have generally for their objects either the personal indemnity of the individuals supposed to have been wronged, or the establishment of a new and better rule, by inducing the government ad- gregsed Jo employ its influence to have the objectionable law repealed or modified. This opinion was given by Attorney-General Bates to Secre- tary Seward in the year 1862. It seems to me that it prophet- ically applies to the case in hand. Mr. GEARY. Do you pretend to claim that Mr. Olney ever based his refusal to enforce the law on any such grounds as those stated in that letter of Mr. Bates? Mr. EVERETT. Ido not know on what grounds the Attor- ney-General based his action. Iam taking the position that it 634 8 was right and natural that those remonstrances should be at- tended to. The remonstrances that came to the Secretary of State he attended to; and I understand that this suspension is as much desired by the State Department as by the Department of Justice. Mr. GEARY. Will the gentleman pardon a further question? Is he not aware that the last Secretary of State passed upon all these questions, and in his answer to the remonstrance of the Chinese minister reminded him that it was their own failure to obey the law that provoked this legislation; and he dismissed their petition? What right, then, had his successor to rescind the action thus taken without some new condition arising? Mr. EVERETT. Every right. These remonstrances were still further pressed; new circumstances had arisen since the former Administration acted on the matter. The decree of the Supreme Court having been made on the 15th of May, 1893, it fell within the administration of Mr. Gresham; and the Chinese minister had a right—nay, it was hisduty—toremonstrate against what he conceived to be oppressive in that legislation; and it was our right and duty to attend to the remonstrance. Now, as to the question of holding our position independently and standing off from other nations with the determination that we will not let them have any say in our legislation with refer- ence to matters within our own borders, I say such a course imi- tates the example of England in its very worst form. We are constantly urged not to let ‘ John Bull ” dictate to us; itis con- stantly said that we should not in our relations with other coun- tries take the English tone and show ourselves Anglomaniacs. Why, sir, that is just the thing that has made England hate- ful to other countries —th at she has refused to alter her muniec- ipal legislation at the instance of other countries and has de- clared that she had nothing to do with the condition of affairs existing abroad. I should like to remind members of the House of a striking case in the international relations of England and the United States.” In the beginning of our late war certain ar- maments proceeded from English ports, and in consequence our commerce suffered heavy depredations. We protested through Mr. Adams against those acts of English builders, and we were told that the foreign enlistment act contained no clauses which prevented the fitting out of those ships. We took the ground then that it was the duty of the English nation to modify the municipal law when it was not up to the standard of the law of nations; that the law of nations, though it had no tribunals and had no penalties, was a great and eternal system which stood above municipal law, and if the representations of a foreign nation against the improper or oppressive municipal law of any nation were believed after diplomatic consideration to be founded in fact, it was the duty of a nation to bring her municipal law up to the standard of the law of nations. And, as has been well said by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OUTHWAITE], and by others in this debate, we ourselves induced the Chinese to come into the brotherhood of nations. Mr. WILSON of Washington. May I interrupt the gentleman for a single suggestion? Mr. EVERETT. Yes, sir 634 9 Mr. WILSON of Washington. We did not induce the China- men to be smuggled here. Now, if I may be pardoned for taking the gentleman's time, the gentleman will find on an examination, if he has not already made it, that the importation of coolie laborers is largely a Brit- ish industry at this time. They are brought in British ships from Hongkong, come through to Victoria, at $50 per capita, and are smuggled across the line from the Canadian borders into our own. Mr. EVERETT. I was aware of the fact—— Mr. WILSON of Washington. Allow me one moment: I wish to say just this, that we are trying to keep them out and are not enabled to do so because of the nonenforcement of the laws of the United States. Mr. Wharton, the Assistant Secretary, says in his communication on this subject: I see no reason why a better understanding may not be brought about, whereby the position of China shall be rather one of amicable concurrence toward a rational and practical end. than one of obstruction to the working of measures, the adoption of which has been in a large degree forced upon the legislative power of the United States by the conduct of the Chinese people in this country, and by the attitude of the Imperial Government in their regard. Mr. EVERETT. Iam aware of that— Mr. WILSON of Washington (continuing). It is therefore the importation of coolie labor that we are so seriously objecting to. Mr. EVERETT. I understand that. I was aware of the fact. I understood so from the beginning, and I maintain that, in this extension of time, in which we give them another chance to reg- ister, that is to say, those who are always recognized as having rights by the Geary act, we are not standing at all in the way of future importations. And with reference to that I wish to say that I entirely concur with the views expressed by the gentle- man from Illinois [Mr. HiTT] who spoke on Thursday, in which he stated his belief that the whole question of the importation of these Chinese laborers across the frontier could be arranged by treaty, but that Great Britain as well as China should be a party to such treaty. I believe that entirely, and I do not doubt but that such a solution of the question would be the best and could be most easily reached. Mr. WILSON of Washington. It could be if the importation was into the State of Massachusetts orsomewhere on the Atlantic seaboard. But, unfortunately, it is on the Pacific coast, and the legislative powers are not so much in sympathy with us as to be willing to come to our relief in the manner desired. Mr. EVERETT. Oh, my dear sir, you are quite mistaken. You really do not influence anyone by bringing in Massachusetts in that way. We have heard that before. We heard yesterday, I believe, one gentleman from the Pacific coast who managed to . work in that old joke on Massachusetts about the Aborigines. It is very funny as an old joke, but it has lost its efficiency. It does not have any influence— Mr. WILSON of Washington. Let me suggest to the gentle- man that I was the ‘gentleman from the Pacific coast,” and that the joke was not on the Aborigines. It was no joke to them. [Laughter.] ; Mr. EVERETT. No sir, it was not. But let me tell the gen- 634 10 tleman that since then the action of the men of Massachusetts in attempts to improve and protect the Indians, in the support they have giver to Gen. Armstrong, a pupil of her own soil, has amply wiped out any charge that may have been alleged against their ancestors of two hundred and fifty years ago, on account of any unjust or inhuman treatment of the Indians; and let me tell the gentleman further that the time will come, perhaps two hundred and fifty years hence, when the descendants of gentle- men on the Pacific coast will regret your treatment of the Chi- nese at this time, and will be more inclined to follow the example of Massachusetts men in following some future California Arm- strong in doing justice to the Chinese. Mr. GEARY. Will the gentleman pardon me for an inter- ruption? Mr. EVERETT. Oh yes. Mr. GEARY. Is the gentleman aware of the fact that the majority of the California delegation in this Congress are from New England? Mr. EVERETT. I was aware of the fact. Mr. GEARY. Thendoes the gentleman believe he isany more loyal to Massachusetts than any of these other gentlemen who are descended from that old Commonwealth? Mr. EVERETT. Onthecontrary:butI hope your descendants will adopt a different policy toward the Chinese. I think that would be more satisfactory. Mr. GEARY. Well I will have some of the satisfaction; I will probably have some. [Laughter.] Mr. EVERETT. My time is going fast in replying to the gentleman from California. I may say that my only regret is that I am a descendant, and not an ancestor. I will try to do better yet. [Laughter.] Now, sir, I say that if the remonstrances of the Chinese min- ister induced the belief that a change in legislation was neces- sary, that is entirely in accordance with all precedent, all right, and all duty. I do not wish to repeat again the ground that has been taken so many times in this debate, that the Chinese were induced not to register by the eminent legal opinions which they re- ceived, that the act was unconstitutional. I do not want to go over that ground to the weariness of gentlemen who have heard it too much already; but I do say this, that those opinions, no matter what was the name of the man who gave them or how it is pronounced, can not be sneered away or-considered insignifi- cant, in the face of the dissenting opinion of Justice Field, Chief Justice Fuller, and Justice Brewer. Those opinions, from the highest legal authority, show that there was good ground for anticipating that the act might be declared unconstitutional. I admit that it has been declared constitutional. I recognize the authority of the Supreme Court; but I do say that a decision, given under such circumstances and with such dissenting opin- ions, stands on a different footing from a unanimous decision, such as that, for instance, rendered by Justice Field on the Scott act of October 1, 1888. I say that under those circumstances there was every reason on the part of tbe Chinese themselves, and on the part of the 634 rT iE rE he ee, 11 executive authorities who had to administer the laws, to believe that future legislation would take place, in order that those who are recognized by the Geary act as having a right to be denizens in this country might have a further opportunity to register and put themselves right with the country. I understand that the author of the bill takes that ground, and that he stated in his opening remarks that he did not intend the act should operate to deprive them of the chance to register. Now, there have been veryirrelevant appeals made to stop the enactmentof this bill, or to have it carried out only with amend- ments which to some of us might seem to injure it. We have been appealed to on the ground that the South, be- cause their views have been considered with reference to the treatment of the African race, should accept the extreme views of gentlemen on the Pacific coast with reference to the Chinese race. Surely, as has already been said in that debate, the treat- ment of those who belong in the country, who are recognized as citizens, stands on a different footing, whichever way you may consider it to act, from the treatment of those who are aliens and still subjects of a foreign power. And then this question of the remonstrance of the churches has been raised. 1 feel that something more ought to be said about that. It is maintained that a religious organization, as such, has no right to petition the Congress of the United States in the name of those who belong to it. Why, Mr. Speaker, there is no question of ecclesiastical dictation. There is no idea there that the members of any church shall dictate on a matter of pol- itics. It is on what they believe to be a question of morals, it is what they believe to be a question of duty, it is what they be- lieve to be entirely within their own province. They may be mistaken. I do not say they are not, but I sus- pect strongly, if the petition had cowe worded a little differ- ently, if some religious organization on the Pacific coast or else- where had urged the enforcement of the Geary act in the inter- est of morality and religion, we should have had the authority quoted and appealed to as the true authority to settle questions of morality and practical religion. It makes a great difference for which object a man petitions, whether his petition is consid- ered worth presenting or not. But if I may introduce a little bit of ancient history, what was it, Mr. Speaker, that established the right of petition for all English-speaking nations? What was the act that determined that any class of men had a right to petition the Government? It was when the seven bishops petitioned James II that they might not have to read a certain declaration, because it was con- trary to an act of Parliament; and when they were tried forlibel for presenting that petition the jury found that they were not guilty, that they had a right, as ministers of the church, to pro- test against the illegal acts of the Government: and it was that— you will find the case in the twelfth volume of Howell’s State Trials, the case of The King vs. The Seven Bishops—that set- tled forever the right of petition by any man or any body of men on any subject concerning the welfare of the people, which was embodied in the Declaration of Rights in 1689. There is another matter that I venture to allude to gently. I 634 12 do not wish to do it harshly, because I have been treated with the greatest kindness by gentlemen on the other side. Even when they poke fun at me they do it kindly. [Laughter.] They know that if they and I were to sit down together, without any serious object, but only with the sole purpose of poking fun at each other, I should probably be able to hold my own; but it does seem to me, sir, when gentlemen talk about our being ter- rorized by the Chinese Goverhment, that there sometimes comes inte these debates a little tone of terrorizing people who do not agree with the strong feelings and convictions of gentlemen from a particular part of the country. It is rather terrible to have to encounter gentlemen who do not think on any subject, who do not suppose, who do not believe, but who invariably and absolutely know. The Republican Gov- ernment, acting under the Constitution, gives a census of the number of Chinese. ‘‘That census is false. The Chinese popu- lation is twice what that census says.” The gentleman knows! The Democratic Secretary of the Treasury makes an estimate as to the cost of deportation. ‘‘That estimate isall false.” The gentleman knows! In certain opinions of the Supreme Court the ground is taken, as read by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. MCCREARY], that treaties are abrogated or violated by the law. ‘No, no treaties are abrogated or violated.” The gentleman knows! The gentleman knows: it makes no difference whether he is contradicting a Republican Superintendent of the Census or a Democratic Secretary of the Treasury, or an impartial Supreme Court divided between the two parties; the gentleman invari- ably knows, and we are expected to yield at once to his state- ment, because we can not be in possession of any information. I say, Mr. Speaker, that sounds very much like terrorizing; and 80 in reference to the amendments he proposes and which he declares must be carried to render this law effective. There is one amendment that I do not object to at all, about the marshal having charge of the deportation. I think it is much better that the question of the photograph should be decided according to the provision in the original act, and the discretion should be left with the successive Secretaries of the Treasury; I dislike any amendment thattends to tighten and not to relax the law. The law is a severe one. You may say that it does not tech- nically violate the treaty; you may say that the country has the right by subsequent legislation to abrogate a treaty; you may say that the Chinese have not shown a wish to carry out the law; you may say that these men have forfeited their right, secured by previous treaties. To that I can not agree; but I do hold, Mr. Speaker, that the law is a severe one. It is meant to be grinding and harsh; and, although it may be in accordance with legal rights, there is a feeling—a widespread feeling, and a feel- ing among those whoare well-informed men—that this is a terri- bly hard law, and that such an act as this, extending the period for six months, giving one more chance to these men, who by the very words of the act had the right to remain here, is a thing that we have a right to ask for. ; [t may be possible, as the gentleman from California stated, that we are actuated by maudlin sentimentality. Idonot think 634 t I¥ ee ee 13 that is the general character of the sympathy in the part of the country where I live, and where we have been reminded three members from California were born; but we do feel that these men are men, they are within the pale of humanity. Their great nation is rising above its ancient civilization. It has adopted and is stilladopting modern improvements in peace and war, and it is arming itself with improved means of warfare which would give it a right to talk about retaliation if it chose to talk that way. Now, Mr. Speaker, we call for that extension, not on the ground of legal right, not necessarily on the ground that the Chinese are not undesirable: not on the ground that their further im- migration should not cease, but I say let them have one more chance, let the law be recast, not in the interest of severity, but in the interest of mercy to mankind. Mr. Speaker, there is some- thing higher than legal enactments; there is something higher than a decision of the Supreme Court; there is something higher than treaties; there is something higher than the opinion of the Pacific slope; something higher than the opinion of Massachu- setts or the opinions of the United States and the ¢pinions of the whole world: there is eternal right; there is keeping faith beyond the strict law when you give your word; there is gentleness and there is mercy. China broke her old policy of exclusion. China put herself within the pale of Western nations. Do not letusforce ourselves to that extremity, to that severity of the old policy of exclusion which we ourselves taught China to give up. China paid the penalty for the policy of exclusion. China kept all foreigners out. She applied harsh and barbarous and cruel methods to them. She treatedthem as ‘‘ foreign devils.” She kept up that until she saw the French and English fleets force their way past the forts of the Yellow River: until she saw herancient cp- ital, crowded with teeming millions, all but levelled to the ground, and the summer palace, the private retreat of the ‘‘ Son of Heaven,” in ashes by the armies of the ‘‘ foreign devils” which she had excluded. Let us have a care, Mr. Speaker, that we do not experience the same fate; let us have a care for our own proud naticnality, that we do not violate these claims of eternal right which are be- yond any treaty, and draw down upon us the condemnation of that power with whom ‘A thousand years are but as yesterday when it is past,and like a watchin the night.” [Loud applause.] 634 0 \ ~ END ~~ OFTITLE "END OF REEL. ~ PLEASE REWIND.