So it is settled by the highest authority in the land that the Chinese laborer cannot come to the United States to compete with our own workingmen on our own soil. The effect of this decision cannot fail to be salutary. It must result in dignifying labor by removing it from enforced competition with what is virtually servile labor; for as surely as debased coin will drive honest coin out of circulation, so surely will the presence of servile labor in a community cast a stigma upon free labor and drive it out of the market.Now the process of elimination can begin in earnest, and in place of the departing coolie we may look for that kind of labor which builds up a community and adds to the growth and prosperity of a nation. Now we may with a dear conscience invite labor from the older States, and insure it against being met on the threshold of California by a horde of Mongolians who can underbid any white labor and put it to flight. Now the regeneration of California can really begin; and if we desire to add another annual holiday to our list we may well celebrate the 13th of May, the day of the final decision of the Chae Chan Ping case.
So it is settled by the highest authority in the land that the Chinese laborer cannot come to the United States to compete with our own workingmen on our own soil. The effect of this decision cannot fail to be salutary. It must result in dignifying labor by removing it from enforced competition with what is virtually servile labor; for as surely as debased coin will drive honest coin out of circulation, so surely will the presence of servile labor in a community cast a stigma upon free labor and drive it out of the market.
Now the process of elimination can begin in earnest, and in place of the departing coolie we may look for that kind of labor which builds up a community and adds to the growth and prosperity of a nation. Now we may with a dear conscience invite labor from the older States, and insure it against being met on the threshold of California by a horde of Mongolians who can underbid any white labor and put it to flight. Now the regeneration of California can really begin; and if we desire to add another annual holiday to our list we may well celebrate the 13th of May, the day of the final decision of the Chae Chan Ping case.
In the presence of these convictions, representing the sense of that part of the American people who have the best opportunity of knowing the effect of Chinese immigration—and who have at an earlier day expressed their judgment by the emphatic vote of 800 for and 154,000 against Chinese immigration—there can be no question as to the propriety of terminating that immigration so far as it may be offensive to that important part of this nation which it most closely affects.
But with this acknowledgement our approval of the anti-Chinese measures of the late administration ceases. And we do not hesitate to express profound regret that it was found expedient to abandon the ordinary and regular methods of international negotiation to secure the desired results and substitute for them the arbitrary decrees of legislation. Especially is this action of our government to be regretted in view of the friendly attitude of the Chinese government, which had entertained with perfect cordiality our objections to their laboring people in this country and had shown their willingness to do whatever seemed necessary to remove them.
The effect of this conduct on the part of our government, which cannot fail to be considered by the Chinese government and people as arbitrary, discourteous and unfriendly, upon the relations of our people with the government and people of China is a subject in regard to which those best qualified to decide seem to have an almost unanimous opinion. This opinion has already been expressed in the extracts from American and foreign journals with which this report was introduced. They may be supplemented by numerous letters recently received by the Chamber of Commerce from merchants and missionaries in China. These letters are submitted to the Chamber herewith. But from some of them a few brief extracts will be found pertinent.
From Canton, Aug. 22, '89. A gentleman who has been a resident of that place more than forty years writes: "The government of China has considered the treaty made by Secretary Bayard and the Chinese Minister in the most friendly spirit. It only refused to ratify it owing to some additions made in the Senate to which the consent of the Chinese Minister had not been given. There is no doubt that a little diplomacy would have secured the acceptance of that treaty with very slight modifications." He says further: "The Chinese government has been very forbearing. This, however, does not imply that it does not feel the indignity most keenly. This people will bide their time."
From Shanghai, Aug. 14, '89. The Chamber of Commerce of Shanghai, to which was submitted various questions on the subject, says: "It is our opinion that as regards Shanghai, at any rate, it is incorrectly stated that Chinese officials discriminate between American and other foreign residents."
From Shanghai, Aug. 9, '89. The Head Master of St John's College writes: "I do not think that trade interests in Shanghaiare in any way affected by the Exclusion Act Among the educated Chinese there is a strong feeling and the insult to their nation is deeply felt."
Frazer & Co., merchants, write from Shanghai, Aug. 7, '89. "According to the best of our knowledge and belief, it is not true, as reported in the press, that American interests in China are suffering by reason of this law." "If any feeling of hostility has been generated in the minds of Chinese officials it has been caused by the rough and ready way in which the act has been passed."
Rev. Henry V. Noyes, now in this country, but many years resident of China and a careful observer, writes Aug. 30, '89:
"The antagonistic policy pursued by our government of late toward China, if persisted in, must in the end be injurious to American interests, both commercial and missionary. The Chinese are a long remembering as well as a long suffering people, and they understand well how to use the boycott principle when they consider it expedient."
"The antagonistic policy pursued by our government of late toward China, if persisted in, must in the end be injurious to American interests, both commercial and missionary. The Chinese are a long remembering as well as a long suffering people, and they understand well how to use the boycott principle when they consider it expedient."
Mr. B. C. Henry writes from Canton, Sept. 9, '89: "There is a widespread feeling that the Chinese are sure to retaliate, and if their policy of retaliation is not yet divulged it is only because in their opinion the time has not come to inaugurate it. They are not likely to forget that glaring injustice."
A clergyman in Shanghai writes Sept. 20, '89: "Although the Americans were in greater favor than any other people previous to this obnoxious enactment, our popularity has suffered, and the officers are sure to discriminate against our people to the advantage of other nations without, of course, giving the reasons."
In view of the facts here presented, and of the opinion widely expressed, concerning the effects of the arbitrary action of our government in the passage of the recent acts for exclusion of Chinese laborers from the United States, the Committee on Foreign Commerce and the Revenue Laws would now recommend that measures be taken by the government of the United States to reopen the negotiations which were unfortunately interrupted and terminated by act of Congress approved by President Cleveland, October 1, 1888. It is believed by your committee that the change in the administration which has taken place since that act was passed, will readily permit a renewal of negotiations at the point where they ceased in September, 1888, and that the government of China will recognize and appreciate favorably a movement on the part of thegovernment of the United States looking to a peaceful and friendly adjustment of all questions in dispute, and to a restoration of the cordial good feelings that have always, till now, marked the intercourse of the two governments.
It is not proposed, nor even suggested, that the government of the United States should open the way for the revival of Chinese immigration, in violation of the convictions so long entertained and so earnestly expressed by our fellow citizens of the Pacific States.
But it is reasonable to believe from the tenor of the expressions of Chinese officials and of our own representatives in China, that if the Chinese government is frankly approached by the government of the United States, it will cordially respond in the same spirit, and will willingly enter into negotiations for a treaty agreement which will be satisfactory to both governments, and put an end to the bitterness which now seems to endanger the welfare of American citizens—whether missionaries or merchants—in China, and to threaten our commercial relations with China which promise to become of vast importance to our people, with the advancing culture and development of the Chinese Empire.
In the words of the Hon. John A. Kasson, spoken during the debates in Congress, in 1882:
"It is not a debased empire. Its higher authorities are the peers of European and American statesmen. We have here the representatives of that people, who are orderly, who are seeking education, who are in responsible places, who are entitled to respect."Let us be careful that we do not forfeit the friendship of a great empire, to be still greater in the future when she shall have accepted more and more of the principles of progress which animate us. Let us take care that we do not forfeit that friendship, and let us assure that great government of the honesty and good faith of this government and of the people of the United States."
"It is not a debased empire. Its higher authorities are the peers of European and American statesmen. We have here the representatives of that people, who are orderly, who are seeking education, who are in responsible places, who are entitled to respect.
"Let us be careful that we do not forfeit the friendship of a great empire, to be still greater in the future when she shall have accepted more and more of the principles of progress which animate us. Let us take care that we do not forfeit that friendship, and let us assure that great government of the honesty and good faith of this government and of the people of the United States."
Your Committee respectfully recommends the adoption of the following resolutions:
Resolved, That the President of the United States be and he hereby is respectfully requested to open negotiations with the Government of China for a peaceful and friendly adjustment of all questions between the two Governments, and for a restoration of the cordial good feelings which have always hitherto marked their intercourse.Resolved, That the Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce be and he is herebyinstructed to transmit to the President of the United States, to the members of his Cabinet and to the members of each House of Congress a copy of the foregoing resolution, together with a copy of the accompanying report.
Resolved, That the President of the United States be and he hereby is respectfully requested to open negotiations with the Government of China for a peaceful and friendly adjustment of all questions between the two Governments, and for a restoration of the cordial good feelings which have always hitherto marked their intercourse.
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce be and he is herebyinstructed to transmit to the President of the United States, to the members of his Cabinet and to the members of each House of Congress a copy of the foregoing resolution, together with a copy of the accompanying report.
Edward H. Ammidown, }Francis B. Thurber, }Charles Watrous, }Gustav H. Schwab, }Stephen W. Carey, }
New York, December 3d, 1889.
Transcriber NoteOn page 8, the word after the phrase, "extra-territorial jurisdiction" was misprinted. The best guess as to what it says is "inferred". A search of the Internet could not resolve this question!
Transcriber Note
On page 8, the word after the phrase, "extra-territorial jurisdiction" was misprinted. The best guess as to what it says is "inferred". A search of the Internet could not resolve this question!