.. 7690 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 18,

Flood, Forney, Fuller, Funston. Gear, Get, GofJ', Hall, Haugen, Herbert, Hermann, Hiestand, Hires, Hitt, Holn:tan, Hooker, Hopkins, Ill.

Hopkins, Va. Hunter, .Jackson, .Johnston, N. 0 . La Follette, Lehlbach, Lind, Lyman, Macdonald, 1\Iatson, McComas, McCreary, McCullogh, McRae, Morrill, 1\Iorrow, Nelson,

Nutting, O'Donnell, O'NeiU, Pa. 0' .1: eill, Mo. Osborne, Owen, Parker, Payson, Penington, Perkins, Peters, Post, Romeis, Ryan, Scull, Seney, Shively,

NOT VOTJNG-185. Allen, Mass. Crain, Alleu, Miss. Crisp, Anderson, Miss. Culberson, Anderson, ill. Cuteheon, Arnold. Dalzell, Atkinson, Dargan, Bacon, Davenport, Baker, N . T. Davidson, Ala. Ban khead, DeLano, Barry, Dorsey, Bayue, Dunham, Belden, Elliolt, Belmont, Enloe, Biggs, Ermentrout, Bingham, Felton, Blanchard, Fisher, Blanu, Fitch, Blis , Foran, Bound, Ford, Boutelle, French, Breckinridge, Ark. Gaines, Bro-wer, Gallinger, Browne,T.H.B.,Va. Gibson, Browne,Ind. Glover, Bro,vn, Ohie Granger, Brumm, Greenman, Bry<'e, Grosvenor, Bucl•anan , Grout, Buckalew, Guenther, BUilllell. Hare, Buruett, Harmer, Burrows, Hatch, B utler, H~yden, Campbell, P., N. Y.lhyes, Cam pbeli, Ohio Hemphill, Carlton, Henderson, Iowa Caruth, Render on, Ill. CatchinK:I, Hogg, Clardy, Holmes, Clark, Hopkins, N .Y. Clements, Houk, Cockran, Hovey, Collins, Howard, Compton , Hudd, Cooper, Hutton, Cothran, .Johnston, Ind. Cox. .Tones,

So the House refused to adjourn.

Kenn, Kelley, Kennedy, Kerr Ketcham, Lagan, Laird, Landes, Lane, Lee, Lodge, Long, Lynch, Maffett, 1\Iahoncy, Maish, Mansur, :Mason, 1\IeAdoo, ~IcCiammy, 1\fcCormick, McKenaa, 1\fcK.inney, 1\Icl\Iillin, McShane, Milliken, 1\Iills, Moffitt, :1\Iontgomery, 1\Iorse, Nichols, Norwood, Oates, O'Ferrall, Patton, Peel, Perry, Phelan, Phelps, P idcock, Plumb, Pugsley, Randall, Rayner, Reed, Robertson, Rockwell,

Sowden, Springer, Stablnecker, Stephenson, Struble, Symes, Thomas, Ky. Thomas, Wis. •.rracey, Vandever, Warner, 'Veaver, Weber, Wheeler, Yost.

Rowell, Rus ell, Conn. RusseJI , 1\Iass. Sawyer, Scott, Seymour, Sh.'\W, Sherrunn, Simmons, Smith, Snyder, Spinola, Spooner, Steele, Stewnrt, Tex. Stewart, Ga. Stewart, Vt. St-one, 1\Io. Tarsney, 'l'a.ylor, E. B., Ohio Taylor, J.D., Ohio Thomas, Ill. Thompson, Ohio Thompson, Cal. '.ril lrnan, Townshend, Turner, Kans. Turner, Ga.. Vnnee, ' Vade, 'Vashington, Wet, ' Vhite, Ind. White, N.Y. Whiting, :Mich. Whiting, Mass. Wickham, Wilber, Wilkins, Williams, Wil on, W.Va. Woodburn, Yardley, Yoder.

During the roll-call . Mr. RICHARDSO"N said: I ask unanimous consent to dispense with I

Also, a bill (H. R. 11194) for the relief of Sovereign Popplewell-to. the Committee on War Claims .

By Mr. J . E . CAMPBELL: A bill (H. R. 11195) granting a. pension to Clarence McLefresh-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By .l'.Ir. COl\IPTON: A bill (H. R. 11196) to incorporate the Colum­bia Central Railway Company- to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Also, a bill (H. R. 11197) to remove the political disabilities of Henry A. Ramsey-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FINLEY: A bill (H. R. 11198) for the relief ofl\IichaelLaw­ler-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 11199) for the relief of S. S. Farris-to the Com­mittee on War Claims.

By :Mr. GROUT: A bill (H. R. 11200) granting a pension to Mary B. Peck-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. MACDONALD: A bill (H. R. 11201) for the relief of Will­iam L. Ro ecrans- to the Committee on Military .Affairs.

By .1\ir. STOCKDALE: .A bill (H. R. 11202) for the relief of Henry M. Ga trell-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Ry .Mr. THOMAS WILSON: A bill (H. R. 11203) granting a pen­sion to Dorcus C. FeL.ton-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

PETITIONS, ETC.

The following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk, under the rule, and referred as follows :

By Mr. BLAND: Petition of citizens of Dent County, 1rfissouri, for amendment to the interstate-commerce law-to the Committee on Com-merce.

By Mr. DUBOIS: Petition of Thomas Kennelly and 9 ~thers, citi­zens of Idaho Territory, for amendments to the interstate-commerce law-to the Committee on Commerce. · By Ur. FINLEY: Petition of William 0. Murrell, for a pension-to the Committee on Pensions.

Also, petition of George W. Garner, of H. W. McCorkle for Spicy E. Huff, of James Doolin, and of T . T. Bradshaw, administrator of Seth Brad haw, of Kentucky, for reference of their claims to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims.

lly Mr. JACKSON: Papers in the case of John Allen aud of Thomas Waltz, of Pennsylvania-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. MAISH: Petition of Joseph K. Null, for a pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions:~

By Mr. PETERS: Petition of A. A. Majors and others,· of Fowler, Kans., for the passage of the service-pension bill-to the Committee on Inyalid Pensions.

By .M:r. STONE, of Kentucky : Petition of Edmund T. Riggs, of BaJ lard, Ky. , for reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims.

The following petitions for the repeal or modification of the internal­revenue tax of $25 levied on druggists were received and severally re· ferred to the Committee on Ways and Means:

Ry .1\Ir. CARUTH : Of d:uggi ts of Georgetown, Ky. By Mr. FINLEY: Of druggists and physicians of Kentucky.

the reading of the .na~es. . 1

There was _no obJe?t.wn, an~ It was so ordered. j The following petition, indorsing the per diem rated service-pension The followmg add1t10na~ P~1 ~S we_re announced : · . . . bill, based,on the principle of paying all soldiers, sailors, and marines Mr. W~oN, of West Vrrgtma, With Mr. JOHNSTON, of Indiana, for of the late war a monthly pension of 1 cent a day for each da_y they were

the remrund:r of :o"d~y. ll in the service, was referre~ .to the Committeeon Invalid Pensions: Mr. TOWNSHEND mth Ur. HENDERSO.", of illinois, until :Monday· By Mr. TRACEY: Of Citizens of Cohoes, N. Y.

n ext. The result of the vote was then ·announced as above stated. 111 r. MATSON. I move a call of the House. The question was put; and the Speaker pro tempo're (.Mr. DOCKERY)

announced that the noes seemed to have it. Mr. MATSON. I call for a division. The Hous~ divided; and there were- ayes 53, noes 42. So a. call of the House was ordered. Mr. RICHARD ON. I move that the House do now adjourn. The question was p t; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that

the ayes seemed to ha•e it. .A division was demanded. The House divided; and there were-ayes 68, noes 40. Mr. JACKSO~. I demand the yeas and nays. The question was taken on ordering the yeas and nays; and The SPEAKER pro tempore said: Twenty-one gentlemen have risen,

not a sufficient number. The ayes are 68, noes 40; and the motion to adjourn is agreed to.

.Accordingly (at 3 o 'clock and 25 minut~ p . m .) the Hou e adjourned.

PRIVATE BILLS JNTRODt: CED AND 'REFERRED. Under the rule private bills of the following titles were introduced

and referred as indicated below: By Mr. ALLEN, of Massachu etts: A bill (II. R. 11192) granting a

p ension to Emeline Carman-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. Bv Mr. BLAND: A hill (II. R. 11193) for the relief of Mrs. Rebecca

Gad.dy-to the Committee on War Claims.

- HOUSE OF REPR.E4SENTATIVES. SATURDAY, A.tlgust 18, 1888.

The House met at 12 o'clock m. Tlie Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.

J. J. PULLIAM.

The SPEAKER laid before the House the bill (S. 751) for the relief of the estate of J . J . Pulliam, deceased.

Mr. GLASS. I ask unanimous con ent for the present consideration of tbat bill.

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read, after which the Chair will ask for objections.

The bill was read, as follows: Be it enacted. etc. , Tb!lt the proper accounting officel's of the Treasury Depart..­

meut be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to re-examine and settle the c-lai m of the estate of .T . .T. Pulliam, deceased, late of Fayette County, State of Tennessee, for wood taken by the United States forces during the late war from 125 acres of land located near the village of La Grange, in said State; and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the '.rrea ·ury not otherwise appropriated, the sum that may be found due said estate: Provided, That the amount shall not exceed $!,167.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of this bill?

Mr. HOLMAN. Let the report be read. The SPEAKER. This is a Senate oill.

/.

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 7691 :Mr. GLASS. The House committee have adopted the report of the

Senate committee. Mr. HOL1.1AN. Then let the report be read. The report (by Mr. STONE, of Kentuckyj was read, as follows:

The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.10949)for t;}).e relief ot' the estate of J. J. Pulliam, deceased, have considered the same, and

re¥~~ :~r!~~~~ :find t.he facts in this case fully and accurateJy stated in Senate report from the Committee on Claims of the present Congress, which report is hereto annexed and made a part of this report. .

Your committee adopt the said report as their o-wn, o.nd report back the bill and recommend its passo.ge.

SENATE REPORT. .

This bill has been three times favorably reported by the Senate Committe~ on Claims and has passed the Benate tmce-in the Forty-eighth and Forty-nmth

eo.;;:~!~~=·or the claim are stated in the report -which was made by this com-mittee in the Forty-ninth Congress, as fol.lows: .

"The original claim of Mr. Pulliam against the UnltedStatesGovernmentbe­·longed to that class which, by the act of Jone16, 1874, the Secr~taryof the Treas­ury was directed to report at the commencement of each session of Congress to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who should lay the same before Congress for consideration. .

'' On the loth day of Jan uary,l882, the Secretary of the Treasury ,in com phance with the act referred to transmitted to the SpeakeroftheHouse of Representa­tives lists ofl,3-39 claim~. of which 1\Ir. Pulliam's claim was one. By the act of l\Iay 1, 1882, all these claims were allowed. .

"The committee in its report on the bill for the allowance of these cL'Ums, make the following statement about Mr. Pulliam's claim:

" • John J. Pulliam, of Fayette County, Tennessee, is allowed in this bill the sum of $1,223. We are sa.tisfied that Mr. Pulliam ought to have been a~rded a. larger sum by the accounting officers of t.he. Tr~sury, but y~ur.commiltee do not feel jus tined in delaying the passage of this bill by amendmg 1t., even for the purpose of doing justice to Mr. Pulliam. . .

" 'If Mr. Pulliam hereafter makes a claim for the balance equitably due hrm, a.nu such claim is referred to your committee, as we now understand the mat­ter, we will favor the payment to him of some additional amount.'.

"Mr. Pulliam's claim is for quartermaster's stores actually furmshed to the Army ofthe United States.~>

The bill I)OW pending for the relief of his estate provides simply for a re-ex­amination of this claim by the proper accounting offi.c.ers of the Treasury ~nd for paymen~ to his representatives of the amount found to be ~u~. 'Ve t~mk tha~ this course is due the claimant. Not only the Senate Committee on Clatms,

· as is shown by the extract from their report; in the Forty-seventh Congress, quoted above, were of the opinion that Mr. Pulliam had not bee~ ful}y.paid, but also the Second Comptroller of the Treas!lrY.bas recorded_ hts opmton ~o the same effect. The claim was presented to htm m 1881, and hiS conclusiOn IS

gi~1rt~is ~~O:':~s tree from the question whether the accounting officers can lawfully exceed the recommendation of the Quartermaster-General, I should be dispose(} to allow a much larger amol!-nt, but I am not _prepared to depart from what has been the usage on that pomt, and I aecordmgly affirm the bal-ance certified by the honorable Third Auditor;, W. W. UPTON, Compt1·oUe1·."

We therefore recommend the passage of the bill. :Mr. HOLMAN. Now, Ur. Speaker, I ask that the bill be again

read. I think it was not distinctly understood. The bill was a~in read. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman

from Tennessee [Mr. GLASS] that this bill be now considered? 1\Ir. HOLMAN. I wish to make a suggestion to the gentleman.

The averment in the bill is that there was a mistake as to the amount that should have been reported in favor of the estate. The facts be­fore the House so far do not establish tbat with sufficient clearnes3 to justify the statement in those positive terms. I suggest, therefore, to the gentleman having the bill in charge that be consent to amend the bill by inserting the words " as is alleged," so as to avoid making the positive statement. I suggest also that the bill he amended ~y strik­inO' out the name of "the Secretary of the Treasury," where It occurs in the bill and substituting ''the Quartermaster-General,'' who is the proper offi~er, under the act of 1864, to adjust these claims.

There is no objection to directing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the amount that is reported to be due by the Quartermaster-Gen-eral. -

Mr. JACKSON. I wish to ask the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hou:LA.Nj whether he is familiaT with the fads of this case.

.Mr. HOLMAN. Somewhat. Ur. JACKSON. At what time was thiS wood taken-before the war

or during the war? M:r. HOLMAN. During the war. This is a · claim under the act of

1864 calJed the Fourth of July act. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of

the bill? hlr. HOLMAN. I have no objection, provided those two amend-

ments are made. Mr. GLASS. I accept the amendments. The amendments were agreed to. The bill as amended was ordered to a third reading; and it was ac­

cordingly read the third time, and passed. 111 r. GLASS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill as amended

was agreed to; and also })loved that the· motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

T)1e latter motion was agreed to. The bill H. R. 10949 for the same purpose was laid on the table.

JArurns ruiL~INGER. . The SPEAKER also laid before the Honse the bill (S. 602) for the re­

lieT of James Uillinger; which was read twice, and referred to the Com­mittee on War Claims.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows:-To Mr. WEBER, for ten days from August 2, on account of impor-

tant business. To ~Ir. McCuLLOGH, indefinitely, on account of private business. To l'tlr. PENINGTON, indefinitely, on account of sickness. . To Mr. SAWYER, indefinitely, on account of important business. To Mr. ELLIOTT, until Tuesday next. . To Mr. BAKER, of New York, an extension of leave for one week,

on account of important business. . . . . To Mr. CoGSWELL indefinitely, on account of s1ckness m hi.S family. To Mr. RICE, indeftnitely, on account of sickness in his family. To Mr. MAISH, for th~s day, on account of business.

LEAVE TO PRINT.

By unanimous consent, Mr. SAYERS obtai_ned l_eave 1:.? revise and ex­tend in t.he RECORD his remarks on the fortifications bill.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. A messaO'e from the Sen"ate, by Mr. PLATT, one of its clerks, an­

nounced that the Senate further insisted upon its amendments non­concurred in by the House to the bill (H. R. 10540) making appropri­ations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, and for other purposes, disagreed to the amend­ment of the House to the amendment numbered 19 of the Senate, and agreed to the conference requested, and bad appointed as conferees on the part of the Senate Mr. ALLISON, Mr. HALE, and Mr. BECK.

The message also announced that the Senate bad passed a bill (S. 3447) amendatory of an act relating to postal crimes, and amendatory of the statutes therein mentioned, approved June 18, 1888, and for other purpQses, in which the concurrence of the House was requested.

SUNDRY CIVIL APPROPRIATON "BILL. The SPEAKER appointed as conferees on the part of. t"J;le House ~11 -

the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the sundry civil appropna.­tion bill, Mr. FORNEY, Mr. BURNES, an<L1.1r. RYAN.

INVE3TIGATION OF GOVERNMENT PRINTISG OFFICE. On motion of Ur. RICHARDSON, by unanimous consent, an order

was made to print the usual number of copies of the testimony taken by the Select Committee to Investigate the Affairs of the Government Printing Office. •

PUBLIC BUILDING, PUEBLO, COLO. Mr. SYMES. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee of the

Whole be discharged from the further consideration of the bill (S. 105) to pi"Ovide for the erecti~n of a public building ~t Pueblo, Colo., and that the bill be put upon 1ts passage. A House b1ll for the same pur­pose bas been reported favorably by the Committee on Public Build­ings and Grounds. The Senate passed the billappropriating$175,000. The House committee report a bill appropriating $100,000, and I ask unanimous consent that the House bill be laid on the table and the Senate bill be amended so as to make the amount $100,000, and that the bill so amended be now considered.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Arkansas. I must object to the consid-eration of any such bill at this tkle. • '

1.1r. SPRINGER. Then I demand the regular order. Mr. SYMES. _Will the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. BRECKIN- ·

RIDGE] withhold his objection while I make a brief statement about thebill? .

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Arkaru:as. The gentleman has l!L'lde a statement and no statement can alter the facts I have in view.

Mr. SY1IES. I have not made a statement regarding the merits of the bill.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Arkansas. Well, Mr. Speaker, there are doubtless many good bills which gentlemen would like to get through here, but we have already passed at this session a two years' quota of public-building bills .

Mr. DIBBLE. I would like the gentleman to explain to the House what he calls a " two-years quota."

1tlr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Arkansas. Bills which have already passed and become laws ·under a recent computation amounted to nearly $4,000,000; nearly $2,000,000 had passed _the House and was pending before the Senate. There was also pending o~er $2, 000,_000 of Senate increases. This makes over $8,000,000 of bills passed mto law and in position to become law. The appropriations for the last Congress were hardly more than this, amounting to, say, $t},OOO,OOO.

1\ir. DIBBLE. There have not become law bills amounting to that much, and that amount is not up to the quota of the two years' work of any Congress of late years.

Mr. TAULBEE. 1\Ir. Speaker, is it not in o.rder to submit a confer-ence report?

The SPEAKER. The regular order is demanded. Mr. TAULBEE. I did not demand the regular ordeL The .SPEAKER. The Chair so understood. Mr.' BLAND. I demand the regular order. Mr. SYMES. I believe I am allowed to make one short st.'l.tement

in regard to this bill. The SPEAKER. The regular order has been demanded b;v seveml

gentlemen.

•

-7692 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-~OUSE. AUGUST 18,

FIRST NATIONAL BANK, PORTLAND, OREGON. The following conference report, sent to the desk by Mr. TAULBEE,

was read: The committee of conference on the rusagreeing votes of the t-wo IIouses o'n

the amendment of the Senate to the bill of the House 1761, entitled ""A bill for the relief of the First National Bank of Portland, Oregon, for money advanced the bregon Iron Works, the contractor in building the United St.at.es revenue­cutter Thomas Corwin;" having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its disagr~ement to the amendment of the Sen­ate and, with the following amendment, agree to the same:

Insert, after the word "iron," in line 15, page 2 of the Senate amendment, the following:

"To Coffin & Hendry, of San Francisco, the sum of Sl,575 for furnishing sails and rigging."

All of which is respectifully submitted. W. P. TAULBEE, B. HERMANN, THOMAS L. THOMPSON,

.Managers on the part of the House. JOHN H. MI'rCHELL, WM. M. STEWART, E. K. WILSON,

Manager a on the part of the Senate.

The SPEAKER. The statement accompanying this report was read yest-erday and is in the RECORD. The question is on agreeing to the report.

The report was agreed to. Mr. TAULBEE moved to reconsider the vote by which the report

was agreed to; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to. FILING OF REPORTS.

Mr. SPRINGER. I ask unanimous consent that leave be -given to file reports with the Clerk during to-day for appropriate reference.

There being no objection, the leave requested was given. PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. DOCKERY. I desire to make a brief personal explanation. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to permitting the gentleman

from Missouri [Mr. DoCKERY] to make a brief personal explanation? The Chair hears none.

Mr. DOCKERY. Mr. Speaker, I notice in the Washington Post of this morning a ~tement that on yesterday I resorted to ''filibuster­ing tactics'' to prevent the consideration of general pension legislation. I did ask unanimous consent (there being only eight minutes of the hour remaining) that the hour be considered as having expired; but my purpose was, as appears by the RECORD, to avoid a call of the roll , which call I apprehended would disclose the lack of a quorum and pre­vent. the pension session last night. The res11lt of that roll-call failed to show the presence of a quorum and my fears were fully realized. The statement to which I have referred is therefore an error (uninten­tional no doubt) and without any foundation whatever in fact.

CHINESE IMMIGRATION. Mr. McCREARY. Mr. Speaker, Senate hill No. 3304 was referred

t~the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the lOth instant with authority to report the bill at any time for consideration. I now report back favorably with an amendment, and for immediate consideration, the l)ill (S. 3304) to prohibit the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States.

The SPEAKER. Is the reading of the bill at length demanded? It was read when previously before the House.

Mr. MORROW. This is the bill which I asked to have considered a few days ago.

The SPEAKER. As the Chair has stated, the bill has heretofore been read; and unless the reading be now demanded it will not be read again.

The bill is as follows: A bill (S. 3304.) to prohibit the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer-ica in Congrus aBsembled, That from and after the date of the exchange of ratifications of the pending t-reaty between the United States of America. and His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of China, signed on the 12th day of March, A .. D. 1888, it shall be unlawful for any Chinese person, whether a sub­ject of China or of any other power, to enter the United States, except as here­inafter provided. •

SEC. 2. That Chinese officials, teachers, students, merchants, or travelers for pleasure or curiosity, shall be permitted to enter the United States, but. in order to entitle themselves to do so they shall first obtain the permissi.on of the Chinese Government, or other government of which they may at the time be citizens or subjects. Such permission and also their personal ident-ity shall in such case be evidenced by a. certificate to be made out by the diplomatic repre­sentative of the United States in the country, or of the consular representative of the United States at the port or place from which the person named therein comes. The certificate shall contain a full description of such person, of his age, height, and general physical features, and shall state his former and present occupation or profession and place of residence, and shall be made out in dupli­cate. One copy shall be dehvered open to the person named and described, and the other copy shall be sealed up and delivered by the diplomatic or con­sular officer as aforesaid to the captain of the vessel on which the person named in the certificate sets sail for the United States, together with the sealed certifi­cate, which shall be addressed to the collector of customs at the port where such person is to land. There shall be delivered to the aforesaid captain a let· ter from the consular officer addressed to the colle<:tor of customs aforesaid, and stating that said consular officer has on a certain day delivered to the said cap­tain a. certificate of the ri~ht of the verson named therein to enter the United

•

States as a Chinese official, or other exempted person, as the case may be. And any cnptain who lands or n.ttempts to land a Chinese person in the United States, without having in his possession a sealed certificate, as required in this section, shall· be liable to the penA.lties prescribed in section 9 of this act.

SEC. 3. That the provisions of this act shAll apply to a.ll persons of the Chinese race, whether subjects of China orotherforcigu power, excepting Chinese diplo­matic or consula.r officers and their attendants; and the words "Chincl5e labor­ers," wherever used in this act, shall be construed to mean both skilled and un­skilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.

SEc. 4. That th~ master of any vessel arri.ving in the United States from any foreign port or place with any Chinese passengers on board shall, when he de­li vera his manifesto! cargo. and if there be no cargo, when be makes legal en try oC his vessel, and before landing or permitting to land any Chinese person (unless a diplomatic or consular officer1 or attendant of such officer), deliver to the col­lector of customs of the district m which the vessel shall have arrived the sealed certificates and letters as aforesaid, and a separate list of all Chinese persons taken on board of his vessel at any foreign port or place, and of all such per­sons on board at the time of arrival as afo resaid. Such Jist shall show the names of such persons and other particulars as shown by their open certificates, or other evidences required by this act, and such list shall be sworn to by the master in the manner required by law in relation to the manifest of the car&'o·

The master of any vessel as aforesaid shall not permit any Chinese diplo­matic or consular officer or attendant of such officer to land without having first been informed by the collector of customs of the official character of such officer or attendant. Any refusal or willful neglect of the master of any vessel to comply with the provisions of this section shall incur the same penalties and forfeitures as are provided for a refusal or neglect to report and deliver a man­ifest of the cargo.

SEc. 5. That from and after the passage of this act no Chinese laborer in the United States shall be permitted, after having left, to return theret-o, except under the conrutions stated in the following sections.

SEC. 6. That no Chinese laborer within the purview of the preceding section 11hall be permitted to return to the United States unless be has a lawful wife, child, or parent in the United States, or property therein of the value of 81,000, or debts of like amount due him nnd pending settlement. The marriage to such wife must have taken place at least a year prior to the application of the laborer for a permit to return to the United States, and must have been followed by the continuous cohabitation of the parties as man and wife. If the right to return be claimed on the ground of property or of debts, it must

appear that the property is bona fide and not colorably acquired for the purpose of evading this act, or that the debts are unascertained and unsettled, and not promissory notes or other similar acknowledgments of ascertained liability.

SEC. 7. That a Chinese person claiming the right t-o be permitted to leave the United States and return thereto on any of the grounds stated in the foregoing section, shall apply to the collector of custom.s of the district from which he wishes to depart at least a month prior to the time of his departure, and shall make on oath before the said collector a full statementdescriptiveofhisfamily, or property, or debts, as the case may be, and shall furnish to said collector such proofs of the facts entitling him to return as shall be required by the rules and regulations prescribed from time to time by ihe Secretary of the Treasury1 and for any false swearing in relation thereto he shall incur the penaltiesofperJnry. He shall also permit the collector to take a full description of his person, which description the collector shall retain and mark with a. number. And if the col­lector, after hearing the proofs and invel5tigating all the circnmstanc~ of the case, shall decide to issue a certificate of return, he shall at such time and place as he may designate, sign and give to the person applying a certificate containing the number of the description last aforesaid, which shall be the sole evidence given to such person of his right to return. It the last named certificate be transferred, it shall become void, and the person to whom it was given shall for­feit his right to return to the United States. The right to return under the said certificate shall be limited to one year; but it may be extended for an additional period, not t-o exceed a year, in cases where, by reason of sickness or other cause of disability beyond his control, the holder thereof shall be rendered unable sooner to return, which facts shall be fully reported_ to and investigated by the consular representative of the United Stat.es at the port or place from which such laborer departs for the United State!!, and certified by such representative of the United States to the satisfaction of the collector of customs at the port where such Chinese person shall seek to land in the United States, such certifi­cate to be delivered by said representative to the master of the vessel on which he departs for the United States. And no Chinese laborer shall be permitted to re-enter the United States without producing to the proper officer of the cus­toms at the port of such entry the return certificate herein required. A Chinese l>J.borer possessing a. certificate under this section shall be admitted to the United States only at the port from which he departed therefrom, and no Chinese per­son, except Chinese ruplomatic or consular officers, and their attendants, shall be permitted to enter the United States except at the ports of San Francisco, Portland, Oregon, Boston, New York, New Orleans, Port Townsend, or ~uch other ports as may be delilignated by the Secretary of the Treasury.

SEc. 8. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall be, and he hereby is, author­ized and empowered to make and prescribe, and from time to time to change and amend such rules and regulations, not in conflict with this act, as he may deen1 -necessary and proper to conveniently secure to such Chinese persons as are provided for in Articles II and III of the said treaty between the United States and the Empire of China, the rights therein mentioned, and such as shall also protect the United States against the coming and transit of persons not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of said articles. And he is hereby fw·tber authorized and empowered to prescribe the form and substance of certificates to be issued to Chinese laborers under and in pursuance of the pro­visions of said articles, and prescribe the form of the record of such certificate and of the proceedings for issuing the same, and he may require the deposit, as a part of such record, of the photograph of the party to whom any such certi­ficate shall be issued.

SEC. 9. That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States on such vessel, and land, or attempt to land, or permit to be landed any Chinese laborer or other Chinese person, in contravention of the provisions of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on con­viction thereof, shall be punished with a fine of not les than~ nor more than $1,000, in the discretion of the court, for every Chinese laborer or other Chinese person so brought, and may also be imprisoned for a term of not less than one year nor more than five years, in the discretion of the court.

SEc. 10. That the foregoing section shall not apply to the case of any master whose vessel shall come within the jurisdiction of the United States in distress or under stress of weather, or touching at any port of the United States on its voyage to any foreign port or place. But Chinese laborers or persons on such vessel shall not be permitted to land, except in case of necessity, and must de· part with the vessel on leaving port.

SEc. 11. That any person who shall knowingly and falsely alter or substitute any name for the name writt-en in any certificate herein required, or forge such certHicate, or knowingly utter any forged or fraudulent certificate, or falsely personate an·y person named in any such certificnte, and any person other than tbe one to whom a certificate was ilijlued who shall falsely present any such cer­tificate, shall be deemed guilty of a. misdemeanm·, and upon conviction thereot shall be fined in a sum not exceeding $1,000, and imprisoned in a penitentiary for a term of not more than five years.

SEC. 12. That before any Chmese passengers are landed from any such 'r~asel'.

1888. OONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- HOUSE. 7693 the collector, or his deputy, shall proceed to examine such passengers, compar­ing the certificates with the list and _ with the passengers; and no passenger

. shall be allowed to land in the United States from such vessel in violation of law ; and the collector shall in person decide all questions in dispute with re­gard to the right of any Chinese passenger to enter the United States, and his decision shall be subject to review by the Secretary of the Treasury, and not otherwise.

SEc. 13. That any Chinese person, or person of Chinese descent, found unlaw­·fulty in the United States, or its Territories~ may be arrested upon a warrant issued upon a complaint, under oath, filed by any party on behalf of the United States, by any justice, judge, or commissioner of any United·States court, return­able before any justice, judge, or commissioner of a. United States court, or be­fore any United States court, and when convicte<!z upon a. hearing, and found and adjudged to be one not lawfully entitled to oe or remain in the United States, sMch person shall be removed from the United States to the country whence he came. But any such Chinese person convicted before a commissioner OJ a. United States court may, within ten days from such conviction, appeal to the judge of the district court fot· the district. A certified copy of the judgment shall be the process upon which said removal shall be made, and it may be ex­ecuted by the marshal of the district, or any officer having authority of a mar­shal under the provisions of this section. · And in all such cases the person who brought or aided in bringing such person into the United States shall be liable to the Government of the United States for all necessary expenses iucurred in such investigation and removal; and all peace officers of the several States and Territories of the United States are hereby invested with the same authority in reference to <lllrrying out the provisions of this act, as a marshal or deputy mar­shal of the United States, and shall be entitled to like compensation, to be aud­ited and paid by the same officers.

SEa. 14. That the preceding sections shall not apply to Chinese diplomatic or cons-ular officers or their attendants, who shall be admitted to the United States tinder !!pecial instructions of the Treasury Department., without production of ot.her evidence than that of personal identity.

SEC. 11>. That the act entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to ex­ecute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese,' approved May 6, 1882," approved July 5, 1884, is hereby repealed.

Passed the Senate August 8, 1888. Attest: . · ANSON G. McCOOK, Secretary.

The amendment reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs was read, as follows:

Strike out section 15 and insert: "That the a.ctentitled 'An act. to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to

Chinese,> approved May 6, 1882, and an act to amend said act, approved July 5, 1884, are· hereby repealed, to take effect upon the ratification of the pending · treaty, as provided in section 1 of this act."

Mr. McCREA]{Y. Mr. Speaker~ the President of the United States on the 16th of March, 1888, transmitted to the Senate. of the United States for constitutional approval a convention or treaty, signed and con­cluded in the city of Washington on the 12th of March, 1888, under his direction, between the United States and China, to prohibit Chinese la­borers from coming into this country for• a period of twenty years, and providing further that if six months before the expiration of said period of twenty years neither government shall formally have given notice of the termination of the treaty to the other, it shall remain in full force for another like period of twenty years. · Hon. Thomas F. Bay­ard, Secretary of State, acted as plenipotentiary of the President of the United States, and Chang Yeli Hoon, envoy extraordinary and min­isterplenipotentiary, acted as plenipotentiary of the Emperor of China.

The provisions of the treaty preclude the return of Chinese laborers who are not now in this country, and forbid the coming into the United States of Chinese laborers from any quarter whatsoever; but from this inhibition are excepted any Chinese laborer who has a law­ful wife, child, or parent in the United States or property therein of the value of $1,000, or debts of like amount doe him and pending settlement. ·And Chinese officials, teachers, students, merchants, or travelers for pl~ure or curiosity are permitted to enter the United States, bot in order to entitle them to do so they are required to first obtain the permission of the Chinese Government, evidenced by cer­tificates duly made out by the diplomatic representative of the United States in the country, or of the t:>onsular representative of the United States at the place from which tne person named therein comes. On the 7th of May, 1888, the Senate ratified the treaty with two amend­ments, as follows:

To Article I: 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 IT: 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 cust<1ms the return certificates herein required.

These not very important amendments have delayed the ratification of the treaty for several months. The Chinese minister is now in Peru, and it will not probably take effect until the latter part of the present year, as the treaty with the Senate amendments must be resubmitted to the Chinese Government for approval. If the Senate had ratified the treaty without amendments, then as soon as we pass the pending bill, which came to the Honse of Representatives about one week ago, and it is approved by the President, Chinese laborers would be absolutely prohibited from coming to the United States. -

The Chinese Government may refuse to accede to the changes in the treaty proposed by the Senate. If this occurs, the whole negotiation will fail; bot as it is probable the amendments will be agreed to, in view of the public interest taken in the question of Chinese immigra­tion, and the necessity for legislation to carry into effect the provisions of the treaty as soon as it is properly approved and ratified, the pend­ing bill and amendment should pass without delay.

The object of the bill is to give effect to the treaty when the ratifica­tions are exchanged, and it presents questions which are worthy of the most careful consideration and the most deliberate discussion.

In order to understand and appreciate the great demand for the treaty and for the bill it is proper that I should briefly refer to the treaties heretofore made between the United States and China, and also to bills· passed by Congress to give effect to those treaties.

The treaty of amity and commerce between· the United States and China which existed in 1869 was supplemented by another treaty rat­ified in that year, and commonly known as the Burlingame treaty. By Ar}icle V of this treaty the right was conferred upon all Chinese sub­jects to emigrate to the United States either for purposes of curiosity or trade or for permanent residence.

Article VI conferred a similar right upon citizens of the United States in respect to Chinese territory at such places only where for-eigners were permitted to reside. ·

The practical etrect of this treaty was soon found to be pernicious and injurious to the States and Territories of the United States bor­dering on the Pacific Ocean.

"While vm-y few Americans desired to become permanent 1·esidents of China, vast hordes of ignorant and immoral Chinese were brought into the United States and thrown into competition with American labor.

Earnest appeals for relief were made by the citizens of the Pacific States and Territories, and Congress in 1877 appvinted a joint commit­tee, consisting of three Senators and three members of .the House Qf Representatives, to visit the Pacific coast and investigate the su_bject. The committee made a full and fair investigation and an exhau.stive report, and the following paragraph indicates the views of t.he com-mittee: ·

Many of the people of the Pacific coaet believe that this influx of the Chinese is a standing menace to republican institutions upon the Pacific and the exist­ence there of Christian civilization. From all the facts they have gathered for and against the Chinese, the committee believe that this opinion is well founded. They believe that free institutions founded upon free schools and intelligence can only be maintained where based upon intelligent and a.dequaU;lly paid la.• bor. Adequate wages are needed to give self-respect t<l the laborer and the means of education to his children. Family life is a. great safeguard to our po­litical institutions.

Chinese im.m igration involves sordid wages, no public schools, and the absence of a. family. This problem is too important to be treated with indifference. (;ongress should solve it, having due regard to any rights already accrued under existing treaties, and to humanity. But it must be solved in the judgment of the committee, unless our Pacific possessions are to be ultimately giyen over to a race alien in all its tendencies which will make it practically provinces of China rather than States of the Union. The committee recommend that meas­ures be taken by the Executive, looking toward a modification of the existing treaty with Chil1a, confining it strictly to commercial purposes, and that Con• gress legislate to restrain the great, influx of Asiatics to this country. It is not believed that these measures will be looked upon with disfavor by the

Chinese Government. Whether it is so or not, ad uty is owing to the Pacific States and Territories which are suffering under a terrible scourge and are patiently waiting for relief from Congress.

The injurious effects of Chinese immigration became so burdensome and produced so much indignation that in 1879 the Forty-fifth Con­gress attempted to correct the wrong. A bill was passed by both Houses providing that no vessel entering any port of the Unitei States should thereafter land more than :fifteen Chinese passengers on any one trip, JJ,nd the bill also directed the President to abrogate Arbicles v. and VI of the Burlingame treaty conferring mutual rights of perma­nent residence on Chinese and Americans. This bill was vetoed by , Yresident Hayes March 20, 1879. Steps were then immediately taken to effect a modification of our treaty obligations, and_on the 27th of No­vember, 1880, commissioners of the United States negotiated at Pekin a new treaty with the Chinese Government, the first ar~icle or which provided:

Whenever, in the case of the Government of the United States, the coming of Chinese laborers to the [J nited States or their residence therein a1l'ects or threat. ens to affect the interest of that country or to endanger the good order of the said country or of any locality within the territory thereof, the Government of China agrees that the Government of the United States may regulate, limit, or suspend such coming or residence, but m a y not absolutely prohibit it. ·. The limit.ation or suspension shall be reasonable and shall apply only to Chinese who may come to the United States as laborers, other classes not being included within the limitations.

The Forty-seventh CongreSs pas~ed an act to give effect to this treaty, containing a provision absolutely prohibiting Chinese immigration for a term of twenty years. President Arthur vetoed this bill April 4, 1882. ·Congress thereupon passed .another biJ.l which became a law M:ay 6, 1882, suspending the immigration of Chinese laborers for a term of t.en years, but providing that return certificates should be is­sued to laborers who were in the United States at the time of the rati­fication of the treaty of 1880 or who should arri•e in the United States within ninety days of the passage of the act. This law was amended July 5, 1884, by adding additional restrictions, but notwithstanding their attempt to make it effective it was found thatthefloodofChinese immigration continued to increase, a very large portion of the influx being ascribable to the fraudulent use of return certificates. Legisla­tion was attempted by theForty-eighthand Forty-ninth Congresses, but without success.

The Senate bill now under consideration is substantially the same as House bill No. 10605, which was unanimously reported by the Com;­mittee on Foreign Affairs on the 23d of June last, but inasmuch as the final exchange of ratifications ~the treaty must necessarily be delayed

I ·

7694 CONGRESSIONAl, RECORD==--HOUSE. AUGUST 18, I

for some months on account of amendments made to .the treaty by the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs believed that the passage of the bill in the shape in which it came from the Senate repealing the restriction act of 1882 from and after the approval of the bill might throw open our ports to unrestri~ted Chinese immigration for probably several months or until there shall have been time for the exchange of ratifications of the amended treaty, and they therefore presented the amendment which has been reported givingeffecttotherepealingclause from and after the exchange of ratifications instead. of from and after approval of the act.

Mi. Speaker, I have thus given a brief history of the treaties be­tween the United States and China and the laws enacted to carry them into effect: This I have done not only for a proper understanding of the bill, but also to show the earnest effo;rts that have been made to reach the position taken in the treaty sent by the !>resident to the Senate on the 16th of March. 1888.

In my opinion too much credit can not be given to President Cleve­land and. his able Secretary, Hon. Thomas F. Bayard, for their success in negotiating a treaty far in advance of any ever negotiated between the United States and China, and which, :I think, will furnish an effective remedy for the evils of Chinese immigration so long com­plained of.

Mr. BLOUNT. Wbat is there in ~his bill to prevent the immigra­tion of Chinese to this country that will make it more effectual than the previous legislation we have had on that subject?

Mr. McCREARY. The gentleman was not in when I read extracts from the Burlingame treaty and also extracts from the Pekin treaty of 1880. The treaty recently ne~otiated goes further than any previous treaty made with China. It absolutely prohibits the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, and the bill under consideration pro­vides all proper means for carrying the treaty into effect when ratified.

Mr. BLOUNT. I propose to go as far in this matter as the gentle­man from Kentucky. My only object now is to ascertain whether this bill meets all the difficulties of the situation.

:Mr. McCREARY. We think it does. The bill has been carefully considered by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and carefully considered by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. We think the bill is prepared in accordance with the treaty, and that it is a step very much in advance of any action which has been taken here­tofore. We believe it will prohibit the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States.

Mr. HERBERT. Will the gentleman explain tho penalties and safeguards this bill carries?

Mr. 1\IcCREARY. The bHl provides that the master of any vessel arriving in the United States from any foreign port or place with any Chinese passengers on board shall, when he delivers his manifest of cargo or makes legal entry of his vessel, and before landing or permitting to land any Chinese person (other than a diplomatic or consular officer or attendant of such officer), deliver to the collector of customs of the dis­trict in which the vessel shall have arrived the certificates and letters identifying Chinese persons, together with a list of all such persons taken on board of his vessel, and such list shall be sworn to by the master of the vessel. ,

The master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the Uni­ted States on such vessel, and land, or attempt to land, or permit to be landed, any Chinese laborer or other Chinese person, in contravention ef the provisions-()fthe bill, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished with a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, in the discretion of the court, for every Chinese laborer or other Chinese person so brought, and may also be imprisoned for a term of not less than one year nor more than five years, in the discretion of the court.

The bill farther provides that any Chinese person or persons of Chi-. nese descent found unlawfully in the United States or its Territories

may be arrested upon a warrant issued upon a complaint under oath filed by any party, on behalf of the United States, by any justice, judge, or commissioner of any United States court, returnable before any justice, judge, orcommissionerofa United States court, and when con­victed, upon a hearing, and found and adjudged to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States, such person shall be re­moved from the Unite States to the country whence he came. ·

These are some of the important "Provisions of the bill. I think if the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HERBERT] will examine the bill he will be satisfied with it.

.Mr. Speaker, a demand comes from the States and Territories on the Pacific coast asking for legislation on the Chinese question which must be heeded. A cry of distress comes to us from millions of people of our own race which should be responded to promptly.

In the language of another, they have said to us--That everything which men hold dear, their traditions, their liberties, their

aym pa.thies, social habits, and political rights, are all in jeopardy unless a check shall be put to the incoming and terrible wave of an approaching Mon~olian overfiow of everything like Christian or American civilization in the States of the Pacific Slope.

The history of the world does not show an illustration of greater unanimity of feelin~ on the part of a peo~le expressing t heir wishes

and desires t han was shown by an election held in California under an act of the Legislature wherein the question as to whether Chinese im­migration was beneficial or otherwise was submitted to the vote of.tbe people. The vote showed this significant result-for Chinese immigra­tion, 883; against Chinese emigration, 154,638. Less than one-half of 1 per cent. of the voters of that population expressed their wish for non­interference with Chinese immigration, and over 99! per cent. testified to their hatred and abhorrence of it.

I am in favor of opening our ports to the worthy of every land and of giving them a cordial welcome to a country, which is the freest and best in the world; but the Chinese have not proved themselves worthy to enjoy the blessings and benefits of our country. They do not appre­ciate our institutions nor our laws, and they only come here for tem­porary purposes, and they do not desire to be<:ome a part of our civili-zation. · ·

We therefore have to choose between the civilization of the United States and the civilization ofChina-between the social, political, and religious institutions of the United States and the customs, manners, and heathenism of the Chinese. Their habits, interest, customs, man­ners, aspirations, and gystem of labor are totally different from ours .. ·I believe that ''labor should be honorable and honored, and not degraded by being compell~d to compete with this debased and servile race."

In the struggle between Chinese l:tbor and free white labor the latter ~s at a heavy disadvantage. The cooly brings neither wife nor family with him; therefore be can underbid the American laborer. He comes here fox: the sole purpose of accumulating money, and it is said that the conflict of the two races in California has so far OJ?.lY been a question of" the survival of the cheapest, and not a survival of the fittest. "

The permanent prosperity of a country depends upon fair dealing and a proper regard for the interests of those who labor. A just distribu­tion of the wealth of labor among the producers of it is an axiom which all should appreciate and uphold. The appeal of the representative assembly of trades and labor unions of the Pacific coast fitly and ap­propriately expre.~s the situation in California. They say :

It has been calculated that the number of Chinese in California is about 150,-000, or nearly 20 per cent. greater than is the number of mail whites capable ol bearing arms.

Although forming one-sixth of the total population of California., they pay lesa than one four-hundredth part of the revenue required for the State go\•eroment. They send nearly $8,000,000 home annnally to China from the Pacific coast. They underbid our white men il\ the labor market, purchase little or n o A..mer• ican products and manufactures, live squalidly, crowded together, constantly engendering disease. Unlike white emigrants, they do not come to make homes with us and help build up the country; they come without wives and children.

They do not and can not assimilate with the Caucasian race, they continue their heathenish religion and customs, evade our la.wsJ especially internal rev­enue, whenever possible; use the State and Federal 1aws frequently to carry out sentences which have been awarded by their own secret tribunals, and also keep Chinese women in a state" of bondage nd prostitution, these poor crea· tw·es being openly bought and sold among them; have secret tribunals of their own for trying and punishing those who dare to rebel against the arbitrary au­thority of the Chinese Government which under the name of benevolent asso­ciations virtually control nearly all the Chinese in the State.

· The bill now under consideration, taken in connection with the sweep­ing concessions of the pending treaty, seems to apply a more effective remedy to the evils so long complaiped of than any bill ever presented to the Congress of the United States.

It receives the hearty indorsement of the Department of State and is in accordance with the "J)rovisions of the treaty. .

Its prompt passage is earnestly desired by millions of our country­men, and I hope the bill will pass with the amendment report-ed by the committee.

I append the message of the President and the treaty with my re­marks. To the Senate:

I have the honor to transmit her~ith, and recommend for your constitutional approval, a convention signed an~ concluded in this city on the 12th instant, under my direction, between the United States and China. for the exclusion here­after of Chinese laborers from coming into this country.

This treaty is a .ccompanied by a. letter from the Secretary of State in r ecital of its provisions and explanatory of the reasons for its negotiation, and with it are transmitted sundry documents giving the hist.ory of events connected with the presence and treatment of Chinese subjects in the United States.

In view of the public intere t which has for a. long time been manilested in relation to the question of Chinese immigration, it would seem advisable that the full text of this treaty should be made public, and I respectfully recommend that an order to that efJ'ect be made by your honora~R~V1lR, CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 16, 1888.

TREATY OF :M.A.RCll 12,1888 . Whereas on the 17th day of November, A. D. 1880, a treaty was concluded be·

tween the United States and China for the purpose of regulating, limiting, or suspending the coming of Chinese laborers to and their residence in the United States; and

"Whereas the Government ol China, in view of the antagonism and much deprecated and serious disorders to which the presenc.e of Chine e laborers has given rise in certain parts of the Uni~d State , desires to prohibit the emigra­tion of such laborers from China to the United States; and

Whereas the Government ol the United States and the Government of China desire to co--operate in prohibiting such emigration, and to strengthen in other ways the bonds of friendship between the two countries;

Now, therefore, the President of the United States bas apPOinted Thomas F . Bayard, Secretary of Stale of the United States, as his plenipotentiar y; and His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of China has appointed Chang Yen Hoon, mtn-

.

1888. CONGRESS-IONAL · RECORD-HOUSE. 7695 -

,ister of the third rank of the imperial court, civil president of the board ofJm­'perial cavalry, arid enYoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, as his plenipotentiary; and the said plenipotentiaries, having exhibited their respect­ive fu.ll powers found to be in due and good form, have agreed upon the fol­lowing articles:

ARTICLE I.

'l'he high contracting parties ogree that for a period of twenty years, begin­ning with the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, the coming, except undeT the conditions hereinafter specified, of Chinese laborers to the United States shall be absolutely prohibited; and this prohibition shall extend to the return of Cl:rinese laborers who are not now in the United States, whether holuing return certificates under existing laws or not.

ARTICLE II.

The preceding article shall not apply to the return to the United States of o.ny Chinese laborer who has a. lawful wife, child, or parent in the United States or property therein of the value of$1,000, or debts of like amount due him and pend­ing settlement. Nevertheless, every such Chinese·laborer shall, before leaving the United States, deposit, as a condition of his return, with the collector of cus­toms of the district from which he depal'ts, a full d escription in writing of his family, or property, or debts, as aforesaid, and shall t e furnished by said col­lector with such certificate of his right to return under this treaty as the laws of the United States may now or hereafter prescribe and not·inconsistent with the provisions of this treaty; and should the written description aforesatd be proved to be false, the right of retum thereunder, or of continued residence after return, shall in each case be forfeited. And such right of return to the United States shall be exercised within one year from the date of leaving the United States; but such right of return to the United States may be extended for an additional period, not to exceed one year, in cases where, by reason of sick­ness or other cause of disability beyond his control, .ISuch Chinese laborer shall be rendered unable sooner to return, which facts shall be fully reported to the Chinese consul at the port of departure, and by him certified, to the satisfaction of the collector of the pot·t at which such Chinese subject shall land in the United States. 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 certificate herein required. ·

ARTICLE ill.

The provisions of this convention shall not affect the r ight at present enjoyed of Chinese subjects, being officials, teachers, students, merchants, or travelers for curiosity or pleasure, but not laborers, of coming to the United States and residing therein. To entitle such Chinese subjects as are above de5cribed to admission into the United States they may produce a certificate from their Gov­ernment or the Government where they last resided, 'i'isaed by the diplomatic or consular representative of the United S tates in the country or port whence they depart.

It is also agreed that Chinese laborers shall continue to enjoy the privilege of transit across the territory of the United States in the course of their journey to or from other countries, subject to such regulations by the Government of the United Statea ll$ may be necessary to prevent said privilege of transit from be­ing abused.

ARTICLE IV.

In pursuance of Article Ill of the immigratibn treaty between the United States and China., signed at Peking on the 17th day of November, 1880, i~ is hereby understood and agreed that Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, either permanently or temporarily residing in the United States, shall have for the protection of their persons and property all rights that are give~ by the laws of the Unite.d States to citizens of the most favored nation, except­ing the right ta become naturalized citizens. And the Government of t.):le United States reaffirms its obligation, as stated in said Article III, to exert an Us power to secure protection to the persons and property of all Chinese subjects in the United States.

ARTICLE V.

·whereas Chinese subjects, being in remote and unsettled regions of the United States, have been the victims of injuries in their persons and property at the hands of wicked and lawless men, which unexpected events the Chinese Gov­ernment regrets, and for which it has claimed an indemnity the legal obligation of which the Government of the United States denies; and whereas the Govern­ment of the United States, humanely considering these injuries and bearing in mind the firm and a.nci~nt frieJ:¥lship between the United States and China., which the high contracting parties wish to cement, is desirous of alleviatipg the exceptional and deplorable sufferings and losses to which the aforesaid Clafuese have been subjected; therefore, the UnUed States, without reference to the ques­tion of liability therefor (which as a. legal obligation it denies), agrees top6y, on or before the 1st day ofMarch,l889, the sum of $276,619.75 to the Chinese minis­ter at this capital, who shall accept the same on behalf of his G1:>vernment as full indemnity for all Josses and injuries sustained by Chinese subjects as aforesaid, and shall distribut~ the said money among the said sufferers and their relatives.

ARTICLE VI.

Thi'l convention shall remain in force for a period of twenty years, beginning with tho date of the exchange of ratifications; and if, six months before the ex­piration of the said period of twenty years, nei~her Go"ernment shall formally have given notice of its termination to the other it shall remain in full force for ~nother like period of twenty years.

[Mr. MoRROW withholds his remarks for revision. See .A.PPEl>."DIX.] Mr. HOOKER. Mr. Speaker, I presume there is not much differ­

ence of opinion in this House as to the propriety of adopting the bill which has been reported back by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is intended to be in aid of and in execution of the treaty which has been negotiated by the present Administration of the United States witp. the Government of China, and which has just been brought to a conclusion. I must be permitted to say, J\fr. Speaker., that I regard it as extremely unfortunate for the interest of both governments after the amicable adjustment of the questions in dispute between the Gov-· em.ment of the United States and the Government of China that the Senate of the United States should have made any amendment of that treaty which necessitated delay in its promulgation by the two re-spective governments who are parties to it. •

I say that it is unfortunate that the Senate of the U J;l.ited States should have made any amendment to this treaty, inasmuch as they are in my judgment immaterial and unnecessary for the purpose of effecting the amicable object which seems to be of as much interest to one Govern­ment as to. the other, and in which one Government is as earnest in its de~e to ex~nte ~is the other. There should be no delays in giving relief to our people upon the Pacific ·coast against what. they consider

an evil. If there is any impediment to giving prompt, immediate, and instant 1·elief against what they regard now as an unfortunate con­dition of affairs, it is to be attributed to these amendments which en­gender this debate. As the ch<ill'man of our committee presented the various treaties which we have made with China from time to time, beginning with the earliest treaty that that Government made with us

-and down to the present time, I need not go into detail, Mr. Speaker, in reference to them, but desire to address myself particularly to this treaty, and to this Jaw which is intended simply to carry out the ti·eaty.

The· history of the two governments, Mr. Speaker, inregardto treat­ies between them is one in which whatever may be said about the civili­zation of the nineteenth century as demoustrative of the advance and progress of our Anglo-Saxon race, I say that in the spirit and temper of the two governments in regar_d to this treaty, the Government of the United States can claim nothing in advance of civilization over the Government with which we have been treating. The history of the matter may be briefly &tated t.o be this. At the time that we sent the commissioners from the United States as envoys extraordinary to. the Chinese Government-Mr. Burlinghame andl\Ir. Stanton-fo1· the pur­pose of breaking down the Chinese wall, as it "'as termed, and indu~ ing that Government to enter into a treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and China, it was looked upon almost as a hopeless effort to secure the various provisions which we desired to se­:!ure from the Chinese GoYernment.

We were the rarties seeking negotiatious. V{e were the parties ask­ing to have treaties of amity and commerce betw~en the two countries. Ours was the Government asking that our commercial men should be allowed to carry to China whatever we had that the Chinese desired to buy, and bring back from China whatever our people wanted from that country. It was cousidered an almost hopeless task, and these two distinguished gentlemen were selected for the purpose of endeavoring t<r accomplish these results between China and the United States. And when that grand commission l{l.nded at San Francisoo .on their return, no two men in the United States ever received such an ovation as Mr. Burlingame and Jtlr. Stanton. .

They were congratulated upon their accomplishment of the treaty which is designated in the history of the country as the Burlingame treaty. Not only on the slopes of the Pacific were they received with such demonstrations of regard, but they were taken from the cars at Pittsburgh and a great ovation given them; and that ovation contin­ued all along their line of travel up to the capital. They were wel­comed as having consummated a great treaty, and that treaty was rati­fied by the two Governments. It gave rise to the first large importation of Chinese into this country. Subsequently it was found that they came from a race of people who it was not desired shonld be mixed with the American population.

Mr. MORROW. Do I understand the gentleman to say that the Burlingame treaty gave· rise to the first importation of Chinese?

Mr. HOOKER. Oh, no; but the Burlingame trea-ty broke down the wall of partition between the two governments. But, as I was about to say when interrupted by the gentleman from California, after this treaty was ratified between the two governments we found that we we~ receiving a race of people that were not desirable or that w.e wonld not desire should come to this country. We found that they were not a people we would desire to amalgamate with our own peo­ple and become a part of ourselves. We found that 'they isolated themselves, were estranged from our American population, did not de­sire citizenship, and we did not desire that they should have citizen­ship. Hence it became necessary, Air. Speaker, that we should mod­ify the Burlingame treaty.

1\Ir. McCREARY. If the gentleman will per.mit me to interrupt him, it was Article V of the Burlingame treaty which conferred tlie right upon all Chinese subjects to immigrate into the United States, either for purposes of curiosity. trade, or as permanent residents.

Mr. HOOKER. Undoubtedly so, And I will embody in my re­marks the provisions of the Burlingame treaty upon that subject, and also some of the other treaties that we have made since, but I do not think it necessary to occupy the time of the House now in discussing them.

The first article of the treaty provides-SECTION 1. Whenever, in the opinion of the Government of the United States,

the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect the interest of that country, or to endanger the good order of said country, or of any locality within the territory thereof, the Gov­ernment of China. agrees that the Government of the United States may regu­late, limit, or suspend such coming or residence, bu~ may not absoln.tely pro· hibit it.

Mr. Speaker, I was going on to give a history of the negotiations and treaties between the two countries in relation to this subject. Under the Burlingame treaty we found that we were receiving a large popu­lation that was not disposed to intermingle with our people, and hence we proposed amendments to the Burlingame treaty. The first amend­ment that we proposed wa.s to exclude all Chinese criminals. The Gov­ernment of China at once responded, "yes, we agree to that." We then proposed to prevent the coming of persons who were afflicted with dis­ease, and that was assented to by China. Then the bill of 1882 was introduced and engineered through. this House by a gentleman then rep~

.

7696 ·CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. I- AuGUST 18,

resenting one of the districts of California, Mr. Page, which bill pro­_posed to prevent all Chinese from coming to this country.

There was a. provision in the later treaty which we had made with China. assenting to another amendment to the Burlingame treaty and another modification, namely, that the Government of the United States should have the power by law-not by treaty, but by law-to prohibit the immigration of Chinese for a. reasonable period of time; that is, our· Government should have the right by law to suspend the right of Chi­nese immigration. The Chinese Government agreed to that modifica­tion, and under the power thus conceded by China to exist in the leg­islative department of the Government of the United States the act of 1882 was introduced into Congress.

That act proposed to prevent the landing of all Chinese coolies or la­borers in this country for a period of twenty years. 1 rose iu my place in this House-for I was a member of the House then-and proposed an amendment to the bill introduced by the gentleman from California., Mr. Page. I stated that in my judgment the extension of the period to twenty years was a violation of the spirit of the treaty, and I pro­posed ten years instead of twenty. The gentleman who was engineer­ing the bill through the House, Mr. Page, declined to a-ccept that amendment.

I predicted in my place here that the then President of the United States, animated by a desire to maintain our treaty obligations, as be ought to have been whether he was the President of one party or the President of another party, would insist upon preserving the treaty and would veto the bill ofthe gentleman from California, even if it should pass. The gentleman declined to listen to my word of warning. He passed his bill through the House and through the Senate, and it went to the Executive Mansion and it was vetoed by the President. In the same session of Congress the very amendment which I had proposed was adopted by the gentleman from California, and the bill so amended passed both Houses and became a. law.

Now, Mr. Spea er, I say that the Chinese Government has in all re­spects exhibited the most liberal spirit whenever we have proposed to prevent the immigration of its subjects to this country. There was a very memorable commission created in connection with this Chinese question a few years ago in the Senate of the United States, and at the head of it was the then leader of the Republican party in the Senate, Governor Morton, of Indiana. He went to Californla and investigated the 9uestion of the Chinese and of the!!' influence upon the labor of the Pamfic coast. He came back and made a reporttotheSenatein which he took the ground that the Chinese did not seriously at that time in­terfere with labor on the Pacific coast, that they bad been instrumental in building many of the railroads in California, in reclaiming the lands of that country, and that they bad been, in the main, a peaceable and law-abiding class of people. He says in his report:

At a. time when those countries ha.ve adopted a liberal policy, and in tha.t re­spect ha.ve yielded to Western civilization, a.nd ha.ve especially recognized the force of the example and policy of the United States, it is proposed that we shall take a. step ba~kward by the adoption oftheir cast-off policy of exclusion. The argument set up here in favor of this is precisely tha.t which was so long used to excuse or justify the same policy in China a.nd Ja.pa.n, namely, that the ad­mission of foreigners tended to interfere with their trade a.nd the labor of their peQple, and corrupt their morals and degrade their religion.

That was the report made by the commission that was presided over by Governor Morton.

Subsequently the indisposition to have these people come to the Pacific coast has increased, and we have proposed now another-treaty with the Chinese Government, and this Administration, at the head of which stands Mr. Cleveland as the President of the United States, and Mr. Bayard as his Secretary of State, have recently negotiated a new treaty, and again we have the spectacle presented of prompt and ready aeqniescence on the part of the Chinese Government. If that treaty had been ratified in the Senat-e as it. left the bands of the men who made it, the plenipotentiaries of the two Governments, it would be to­day the law of the land and this Administration would have the credit, as it sho~d have, of inducing the Chinese Government to accede to an agreement by. which all Chinese immigration into this countrv shall be excluded for a period of twenty years; but the amendmentS made in the Senate have given rise to delay and probably necessitated the passage of this bill.

I may be permitted to say, sir, that I am credibly informed that the Chinese Government is not only willing, but that it is absolutely de­sirous and anxious to prevent its subjects from emigrating to the United States. It will be found, when in my speech shall be read the para­graph from the Burlingame treaty to which I have referred, that the correlative· rights were embraced in that treaty of our citizens going to China and Chinese citizens coming here, and when we obtained that right it was looked on as a great achievement.

It was regarded as a wonderful and mem"orable feat that we bad in­duced the Chinese Empire, an empire embracing 400,000,000 of the peo­ple of this earth, nearly one-half of the entire population of the globe, to abandon Hs time-honored policy._ China bad lived within the limits of her own wall, having her own people and her own wants to provide for, and she had supplied her wants from the labors of her own people · for centuries. _ -

I here insert Articles IV and V of the treaty: ; The twenty-ninth article of the treaty of the 18th of June, 1858 ha'\"ing stipu­

lated for the exemption of Christian citizens of the United State!! and Chinese converts from persecution in Chin&, on account of their faith, it il'l further acrreed th~t citizens .of th~ United ~tat~s in China of ~very religious persuasion: and Chmese subJects m the Umted States shall enJOY entire liberty of conscience a:n~ sha.ll. be exempt .Crf!m f!-11 disability or persecution on account of their re! lig10us fatth or worshipm etther country. -

ART. V. The United States of America and the Emperor of China. cordially reco~nize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegta.nce, a.nd a.lso the mutual a.dvantn~e of the free migration a.nd emigra­tion of t.heir citizens and subjects respectively from the one country to the other for the P.urposes !>f curiosity, o~ t!a.~e, or as a. ~ermanent residence. The high contracting parties therefore JOID m reprobatmg a.ny other than a.n entirely volu!ltar! emigration for these P!I~po~es. They ?onsequently agree to pass laws makmg ttl!' penal on:ense f<?r a ctttzen of th«: Umted States or Chinese subjects to take Chmese subJects etther to the Umted States or to any other foreign country, or for a Chinese subject or citizen of the United States to take citizens of the United States to China. or to any other fvreign country without their free and voluntary consent, respectively.

Up.to that p~riod of time China had been an exclusive nation; and her hiBtory, Mr. Speaker, has been one of very extraordinary advanca. ment. Her civilization, it may be said: dates back of the earliest staO'es of civilized government in the world, . back of that in this country

0

or in the countl-y from which our ancestors, speaking a like language with our own, came. It goes baek to the days of Confucius; and far beyond the time of Confucius this august dynasty extends, until its oriO'in is lost in the twilight of fable.

0

China is a great nation, great in power, great in intellect, great in numbers, great in resources. When has she displayed her greatness more conspicuously than in the generous concessions which she has been at all times disposed to make in response to the demands of our Government for fair and liberal treaties? When we found that we did not want her population, that her people were not homogeneous with our own and never would become so, that it would be undesirable they should become so, we proposed that they .should be excluded, and she assented to every such proposition, as she has now assented to this treaty which has been formed between the two governments, absolutely ex­cluding the importation into our country of Chinese except those' who may come here as plenipotentiaries, as merchants, as students, or in some other of the accepted claEses. .

It is JUovided by treaty stipulation that · the vast body of the labor­ing pop.ulation of that nation shall be excluded from this country for the penod of twenty years-the very period which, when embraced in the original bill of 1882, was regarded by Mr. Arthur, then Presi­dent of the United States, as violative of the spirit of the treaty ne having based his veto on that ground. China bas agreed to th~ ra. striction in a spirit of liberality which challene:es the admiration of the enlightened world. She bas agreed to a treaty which embx:aces the very provision embodied in the original act of 1882, which was vetoed by a Republican President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I have said thus much in regard to the treaties for­merly existing between the Chinese nation and our own in order that I might pay a just tribute to that nation, with whom we have been upon such friendly terms. She has assented to every modification of every treaty that we have ever proposed from the time when she vio- . lated what had been her traditions and history for centuries, and agreed to the provisions of the Burlingame treaty, conceding to us not only the right to carry our commerce to that country, selling to her our products and getting hers in return, but absolutely -according to our ministers of the gospel the opportunity to go there and preach Chris­tianity without let or hinderance. No more liberal treaty was ever entered into between any two nations than those which China has always been willing to enter into with the United States.

Article XXIX of the treaty provides as follows: The principles of the Christian religion, as professed by the Protestant and

Roman Catholic churches, a.re recognized as teaching men to do good, and to do to others as they would ha. ve others do to them. Hereafter those who quietly profess and teach these lloctrines shall not be harassed or persecuted on ac­count of their faith. Any person, whether citizen of the United States or Chinese convert, who. according to the!!e tenets, peaceably teaches a.nd pra.c­tices the principles of Christianity shall in no case be interfered with or mo-lested. •

I say, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that when I found this treaty had been amended in the Senate it was to me a subject of regret. I am in favor of this bill. I hope it will receive the votes of a large majority of the House on both sides. I am in favor of it because it is in keeping with and is in spirit a part and parcel of this treaty, which has been negotiated by the plenipotentiaries appointed by 1\Ir. Cleveland and by the Chinese Emperor. I believe it would have been better if this treaty had re­ceived the approbation of the United States Senate in the form in which it came from the hands of the plenipotentiaries, and bad been in that form ratified and promulgated, leaving us to enact whatever laws might become necessary for the purpose of carrying the treaty into effect. Wh!Ie the amendments which have been incorporated in the treaty by the Senate may possibly be acceptable to the Chinese Government, we do not know that such will be the case, and I think it a great misfor­tune that in this w:ry the Senate should have risked anything in regard to the ratification and promulgation of this very liberal treaty.

Yu. CffiPl'l1AN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs I approve ofthis bill, and as a member of this Honse i1i

'

,.

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 7697

is my intention to vote for it. I am not prepared to say that I thilik it goes as far a3 it might go. I am not prepared to affirm that it will effectually exclude a very large class of Chinese people who, we are told, slip across our northern and Mexican borders and thus become residents of our country, nnd mix with the business of the people; but the bill, so far as it goes, is a good bill; it is in the right direction, anq for tbatreason I accept it, and shall heartily support it.

Ur. Speaker, this bill is offered here under the treaty-making power. It 'Would, in my judgment, make very little difference under what power of the Constitution it might come here. The Constitution is affluent in power to protect our labor, in power to protect the integrity of our institu­tions, to protect the pori ty and decency of our race. The courts have de­cided this matter. As far back as Gibbons vs. Ogden (a remarkable case and a leading one) the doctrine was announced that commerce does not include mere traffic, but that it means intercourse; that immigration, like importation, is embraced within this power. So far as I can learn, this has never been questioned by a justice of the Supreme Court, save by Chief Justice Taney, in the passenger cases, who held that the same power which regulated foreign commerce regulated commerce "among the States,'' and that as Congress could not prevent a citizen from going from one . State to another and living therein, that because the power over domestic and foreign commerce were collocated in the same clause, that therefore the same interpretation should be put on the power of Congress in each case. I need not say that was iolly-the folly of a wise lawyer, but still fo1ly.

We know now the radical difference between the power over com­merce "among the States" and foreign commerce, and I need not pause to cite the multitude of decisions up to the present moment which respect the decisions of Chief-Justice 1\farshall on this point. Then there is the power of naturalization, which, undoubtedly, im­plies a choice as to who Congress will permit to be natmalized. Be­yond all this is the power of self-protection and the responsibility the United States as a nation must bear as to the status of every foreigner who enters our borders.

True, sir, the civilization of the Chinese is not our civilization; true, they ha.v~ neither capacity nor desire to become citizens of this country; and it ~ true, too, that they are o.trensive in many respects to our own people. But I will not enter into that question. I hail this bill as a step in favor of liberty-asteptoprotect the laboring men and women of this country against the evils of a cheapening competition; and I beg to say, while it is right to exclude the Chinese,. they are not the only enemy who are at our door.

Labor is threatened in many forms by immigrants of various nation­alities; threatened-nay, not only threatened but actually suffering. The crime of which the Chinese are guilty is the crime against lab~r. The crime of working too cheaply, the crime of depleting wages. That is their exact crime, and that is the exact rCflS()n why this legislation excluding them entirely from this country is justifiable. In the sec­tion of country from which): come our lumber woods .ure filled with Canadian aliens, our shipping is navigated through the lakes by the same people. Why? Becaus_e they will work for less wages. We bear the same complaint in regard to the shipping on our Atlantic coast. Why, gentlemen, have you not read the testimony taken lately by the Ford committee; if you have, you must have noticed that the labor employed in the great industries of the country has been nearly blott~d out of existence by the importation of cheap pauper labor from abroad.

Take the cigar industry, for instance (it is a great industry in my city). The testimony given in regard to that industry is appalling. It is the same in reference to industry after industry. Why, sir, our committee last winter went into the coal regions of Pennsylvania. Go into mine after mine in that regions and you will see American labor denied adequate compensation: by being brought into competition with cheap pauper labor from all parts of the world. In every contest of labor for proper compensation the world is drawn on for re-enforce­ments, which are hur~ed against our workingmen to snatch victory from them.

Our workingmen are called on tofightagainstsuch odds a losing battle. In this country where manhoodsnffrageis the rule, decent, well-housed, well-clothed, educated families are a necessity. We are pledged to the future; tothegreatA.mericanracewhich timewillevolvefrom the ming­ling of blood and the fusion of nationality. These decent, well-housed, well-clothed, educated folk are the only foundation upon which the per­petuity of our institutions can rest. Yet by the importation of cheap pauper lahor, brought into competition with our labor, it bas become impossible to protect and preserve the dignity of our laboring men, and it is to prevent the continuance of that evil that restrictive legislation has been found to be absolutely necessary.

Mr. HERMANN. Let me ask the gentleman from Michigan what avail this legislation will be if we permit the introduction of the prod­ucts of Chinese cheap labor into the ports of the United Stat-es to be brought into competition with the products of American free labor?

Mr. CHIPMAN. We will It) me to that in a minute. I expected be­fore the debate was conclnded you would come to that. You say that you protect our labor against the product of Chinese cheap labor. I will not say you, because I do not know, but I do know somebody

XIX-482

brings in this pauper labor, and that it comes into competition with our laboring men. I do not find them in the employ of the farmers of the country, I do not find them in the employ of the humble arti­san, but I do find them in your great mills. I find them Rmid the whirl of machinery, I find them in all of your protected industries, I find them in the great mau'ufactories, I find them in the employment of the railroads of the country,· I find them everywhere in the army of capitalists. You find them driving out our own labor.

There is a remedy needed. Something must be done for the protec­tion of our own labor. Something must be done to keep up the free character and dignity of our own labor. Something must be done in order to insure the continun.nce of the stock of American labor for the future. Unless it is done it will l>e replaced by this cheap pauper labor from abroad.

How does this imported labor come into the country? You have statutes against it. Let two hundred men sirike against inadequate wages, and like magic two hundred men from abroad will take their places. It is so in all parts of the country, and in every department of industry. •

How are these men brought into the country? The provisions of the statutes prohibit their coming into the country, and yet their coming does not seem to be prevented, but, on the contrary, is constantly on the increase. The cry is, still they come. The evil still continues.

Day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute, the cry of our laborers goes up that they are being crushed to the earth by the com­petition of this ·cheap pauper labor from abroad. The present Jaw seems to be inefficient, and something must be done either here or abroad by which this cheap labor can be prevented from destroying our own home labor. Something must be done to insure our laboring men against this ruinous competition.

It has been proposed we shall have inquiry made by onr consuls abroad to ascertain whether every man who comes here intends to be­come a citizen oftlie United States. !tis proposed that before coming here they shall in some way be compelled to make a declaration of their intention to become citizens of the United States, and in that way to prevent the influx of cheap pauper labor under contract, which has been so ruinous to our own labor.

That might be done. We have done it in regard to coolies. We im­pose the duty upon consuls to ascertain the businesR of parties coming here. We have acted upon that already. We have done it in the case of Japanese and Chinese. Why not do it in the case of these others? Why not do it in the case of every man who comes here and is willing to work for less than that which will keep him and his f.'lmily in a ­decent living? I think, sir, that no man should be allowed to work in this country who has not at least taken out his first papers (to use a common phrase), who has not declared his intention to become a cit­izen of the United States.

You say that you can not do that without amendment of ihe laws. \Ve can amend the laws,. but I would give him a shorter time th:m.the laws give him now. They give him thetwoyearsoutofthefiveyears necessary to become a citizen just before the expiration of the full five years. He may do it the moment he comes here. Any man who wishes to be a citizen may declare his intention the very day he en­ters the country. I would require him to do it within three to six months after his immigration.

I would require a man who came among us to make his living to give a hostage in some form that he would become a citizen of this country, that he would help us to accumulate wealth, that he and his children would be our soldiers and our voters, and that they would be good citizens. Why should we not make such a provision? Is there any good reason to the contrary? Under our present system ofimmi­gration when an immigrant lands he may declare his intention to be­come a cit-izen if he chooses.

There is nothing to prevent him. Then in five years be can take out his final papers. Why should not his time to take on~ his fu'St papers be limited to three, to six months? Say to him, "If you intend to make your living in this country and to compete with our working­men, you must declare your intention to become a citizen in a reason­a ble time, during which time you may work, and if you do not do it in that time you shall not ea rn wages until you do it."

A man who comes here and intelligently and honestly intends to be a settler and citizen would certainly do it and put himself under the obligations of the Constitution and the pro~ction of the flag. My experience, which has been large upon the bench and otherwise, is that immigrants should take out their first papers as soon as possible. In my State the Irish, the Germans, and the Poles have come in great numbers. Every one of them, as soon as possible, goes to court and takes out his first papers. As a rule they are good citizens. But on the contrary, on the whole northern frontier there is another class who never shouldered a musket, who ner-er paid a dollar's tax, who never spent a cent in the country that they could help~ but who take every dollar they can out of it, and compete with our own people. They are white Chlnamen, of our own color, uut not of our own spirit.

To every man of every race aud nationality and to every honest man who comes to m to become one of us and undertakes to become a good citizen of this country, and who comes here without the marks of han~-

>

. 7698 · CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE . AUGUST 18,

cuffs around his wrists, I say welcome! welcome! whatever his nation­ality may be; but when the halt, the lame, and the blind, morally, when the refuse of prisons, when the beggars and the wicked and criminals come amongst us, then it is surely time to make laws to protect our own, whether naturalized or native-born.

A man who debauches the price of labor is a public enemy, and when many men come for tbat purpose you. have a greater public enemy to be res:ibted with the full power of the Republic. I would have the world understand that this country is not a hunting ground for every adventurer who chooses to come here; that the hearths of our homes are not El Doradoes for reckless speculation; that the happiness of our people and the permanency of our institutions are founded in the ne­cessities of our best nature. No power may surround with imported labor as in a ~rand battue the workingmen of this country and hunt them to indecency and discomfort.

I would have the world understand that our people will not greet every adventurer who chooses to make this country a home; that our workingmen are not outlaws. I would have it understood that Ameri­can citizenship and .A.meriC!l-n labor and American homes shall 9e sus­tained in all the dignity which the Constitution and the laws throw around them and confer upon them, and that none shall be permitted to come in who would depreciate or lower that high standard.

To be an American, a child of the Republic, is to be a great· one of the earth. Wherever we may be born, the instituti9ns of our country are alike our shrine and defense. A grand American spirit in the hearts of all citizens, native-born or naturalized, is the fortress of our strength, the assurance of self-government forever.

l\:lr. McCREARY . . It is very important that we should take a vote upon this bill this evening, and I ask unanimous consent that debate shall close at 4.30, and that the previous question shall be considered as ordered upon the pending amendment and the third reading of the bill; the time for debate to be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. CANNON. I think the gentleman had better let the debate rnn on until 4 or half past 4 o'clock, and then take the sense of the Honse as to when it shall close.

Mr. 1tfcCREARY. If we let it run on until that time we shall not be able to get a vote to-day. Mr. Speaker, how much time did the gentleman from Miehigan [Mr. CHIPMAN] yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. O'NEILL]?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan !)poke twenty minutes, and he has yielded the remainder of his hour, forty minutes, to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. MORROW. 1\Ir. Speaker, would it not be proper for the Chair to recognize some one on this side of the House at this time?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will endeavor to diride the time equally.

Mr. McCREARY. It appears that we are all agreed upon this bill, and I desire we shall reach a vote this evening.

Ur. FELTON. I suggest that leave be giyen to gentlemen to print remarks upon 'this hill.

Mr. McCREARY. I ask unanimous consent that members may be permitted to extend their remarks in the RECORD, or to print remarks upon this bill.

There was no objection, and it was so ordered. Mr. HOPKINS, of illinois. I think the House is ready now tovote

upon this bill. Mr. CANNON. I have no objection, nor, so far as I know, have the

gentlemen around me any objection, to votin~ upon the bill now, but · then~ is to be debate I suggest to the gentleman that he let it run on until 4 or half past 4.

Mr. :McCREARY. Mr. Speaker, I find that there are several gen­tlemen who desire to speak on this subject, so I withdraw my reqne3t for the present.

Mr. 0' NEILL, of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr, CHIPMAN] for his courtesy. I have ever found him a true friend and earnest worker for the cause of labor whenever labor measures were before the House. - And now, Mr. Speaker, concerning the pending bill, while I favor

it, I think it but proper to suggest that every two years or thereabouts we have a bill passed by Con~ress in regard to the Chinese. It is one of the incidents of a political campaign. A campaign does not appear to be complete without some additional Chinese legislation. We have now pending this bill, which bas passed the Senate, and is it not a singular coincidence that at this same time we have also a committee of this House taking testimony in the city of New York in regard to violations of previous laws passed by Congress to prohibit the importa­tion of contract labor, and thereby protect the workmen of this country?

My object in taking tbe floor to-day is to call the attention of the country to the fact that the passing of laws by Congress will not rem­edy these eTils until you have a public opinion that will respect and back up those laws and carry them out. Whenever you have a public opinion in California that will enforce the laws you will need but little additional legislation upon this subject.

Mr. FELTON. Will the gentleman permit me to interrupt him for a moment?

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. With pleasure.

Mr. FELTON. Does the gentleman think there is a man beyond the Rocky Mountains who is not firm and pronounced in his opinion upon this question? The record of the vote given in the State of California, which has been read by the gentleman who opened this discussion,· is conalusive upon that point.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I will answer the gentleman, w..hom I "regard as a ouest friend of this bill aud oppo ed to the Chinese, that it was my plea ure some two or three years ago to visit California, and I then found tlmt instead-of being an object of ostracism, an element that the people desired to eliminate from their midst, the Chinaman as a. servant or laborer was a favorite with a. certain cl~ of people. I fonud that from the moment you landed.at the Palace Hotel, when the Chinese hotel servant came up to remove the marks of travel from your clothe , through all the hotels, in the private residences, and _in the vineyards, and in the orange groves of California, in the mines, in the flumes, on the railroads, the Chinaman was to be found. And it is be­cause they want him that the Chinaman is in Californ:k1. to-day. I have talked with lahorers there and they h::we told me that men who go to that country under the impression that there are fields of employment open to them are compelled to lea>e because the Chinese laborer is pre­ferred. lie i more docile, more servile, and answers better the purposes of that cla: of employers who, ·with the importers of contract labor, would prefer slaves if they could get them.

I know that the laborers of the Pacific coast arc asking for this leg­isln.tiou; but it is yonr so-called better cla ~es ; it i your gentlemen in your banks, in your hotels, and in your counting-houses, your mining and railroad owne1.-s, tilat employ the Chinaman. And Chinese labor is not always cheap labor. People will tell yon there that they pay their Chinese cooks $40 or $30 a month, and their other Chinese serv­ants in proportion. It is lJOt al wn.ys cheap labor. Wherever yon turn yon will find the Chinaman. That was my experience, anu I went o>er a good deal of the gentl~mau's State.

Mr. FELTON. They are compelled to employ the Chinese from the fact that they cau get no other labor. The presence of the Chinamen there, and the fact of their peculiarly docile nature and their industry, prevent the coming iu of otherbborwhich would compete with them. 1 will admit thisfa.ct, that thereis:tclass of men who always buye>ery­thing as cheap as they can; but I tell this House that the moral senti­ment of the community, the feeling per>ading all classes there is that they would like to do away with this labor and substitute for it a labor which would be homogeneous with our people and would be a part and parcel of our civilization. It is but as a clernier 1'es.~mt that we ha>e been compelled to do things which otherwise we would not do.

1\Ir. O'NEILL, of :Missouri. If the people of the Pacific coast, in­!)tead of adopting the de-rnier 1·essort, woulU take the first remedy at band and advertise the fact that they desired and hacl employment for laborers and servants, they would find in this city, in every city of the Union, even in the citieS in his own neighborhood, hundreds and thou­sands of laborers and servants who would be glad to have employment, many of whom have gone _ out there and have been obliged to come back, finding no chance for employment.

Ur. FELTON. Will you pay their passages? ·Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Oh, there have been cheap rates offered

often, and they have gone there, but they have had to come back empty-handed because they could not find employment .

.Mr. Speaker, what I have said abont Chinese legislation is true also · in regard to the importation of contract l:l.bor. We pass laws upon that subject, and when they are evaded we amend them. But what is the result? Americans, citizens of this country, men who have their money inv-ested in business enterprises, and who care no more about the humanities oflife than they do about the animals they em­ploy, send for cheap European laborers and bring them over here and employ them to the exclusion of our people. It is ignoring the rights of our own citizens; itisignoringthe humanitiesoflife, because after they have used these poor fellows, either for the purpose of breaking down a strike or reducing wages, they turn them out on the hillsides, utterly careless whether they starve to .death or not. That has been the ex­perience in the mining regions; that has be~n the experience in the manufacturing regions.

We ar9 talking to-day about the question of labor. That is the ques­tion that is paramount to all others. Your tariff question is recogniz­able as a question only in so far as it affects labor. Gentlemen, we will pass this bill, as yon have passed many other labor bills in this Con­gress, and I believe that this Congress will go into history as having accomplished more for the cause of labor thau any other Congress that has ever sat here, and I intend to add to my remarks an abstract of the various labor measures that have passed this House, namely: The bill creating a Department of Labor, the arbitration bill, con­vict-labor bills, letter-carriers' eight hour bill, prohibiting employ­ment of alien labor, and to protect laborers, servants, and mechanics in their wages; not to encumber this discussion I will have them printed in the RECORD as an appendix.

Ur. Speaker, I want to go back to jl:l!s question of public opinion. But is it not remarkable that Governor Waterman, the governor of the State of California-a State where they propose to do so much for labor-should write to members of this Congress appealing to them to

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD---HOUSE. 7699 defeat the convict-labor bill, the passage of which every laboring man in this country is now askin6, in order to protect honest labor from convict labor? The governor of that State has sent his lett~r here to various members, basing his appeal on the ground that their prison is now making money out of this labor, and that it would be unfort~ate to displace it. What a commentary on protecting_ labor when mere matters of dollars and cents are weighed against the homes and the welfare of the wives and children of the workmen of this country! What does be care if prison labor destroys every trade in this land? If your prison contractors can wipe out one trade after another, what does he care? It is with him a mere question of dollars and cents-~ mere question bow flu human labor can be used for the purpose of making money out of it. And that is pertinent to this bill; it is in­volved in this discussion, being a greater evil than the Chinese ques­tion.

We want the Cflinese excluded, not as a matterofrace prejudice, but because their seething population could be dumped upon our shores by the hundreds ofthonsands; and itis a matter ofself-preservation, "the first law of nature," that we sbouldprotectourselvesagainstan inroad of that kind, and their habits and manners do not admit of their as­similation with our people. But the Chinese question, I again tell the members of this Honse, is not the only remaining question involving the interests of labor to be disposed of by this House. · When you have passed this bill, together with the other labor bills which have been passed by this House, you have not answered tbl3 demands of labor. Petitions have come to this House reprPsenting over 300,000 laborers of this country who lmve asked this Congress to pass a bill to protect honest labor against convict labor. Members can not defend them­selves at home in their opposition to a measure of this kind on some legal quibble or by stating that they refuse to give a -day to the cause of labor because a day is not granted for the consideration of pension legislation. There is not a pensioner in tbis country who will indorse a sentimen\ of that kind. Every such man would say, "I want what I believe to be just, but in order to secure that I do not ask yon to injure my fellow-men; do not refuse an opportunity to protect them against a more insidious enemy than Chinese labor." Chinese labor, in the competition which it creates, is not nearly so disastrous and far­reaching as convict labor. The representatives. of trade after trade have come here and told us that where formerly hundreds of men were employed the shops are now closed and the men idle. In one case it is 50 per cent. of the hollow-ware trade that has been absorbed by convict labor; in another case it is 40 per cent. of the matting industry, the coopering industry, or the harne..."S trade; in another case it is 15 per cenJ;. of all the shoe trade of the country.

I am bringing this home to you, gentlemen, for the reason that your workmen will tell you the question of protecting free American labor against convict labor is more important than even protecting the home labor against the pauper laborer of Europe or against Chineso labor. You have here a live issue; and I have seized this opportunity of .ap­pealing to the patriotism of this Honse. I appeal to the love which members profess, and I believe nearly all of them honestly feel, for the cause of labor, and ask them to stand by me in securing a day for the consideration of the labor bills still pending in the House.

I have about finished all I desire to say. I believe the pending bill ought to be passed. [Applause.]

APPENDIX. .ABSTRA<:rr OP' LABOR BILLS PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND

CONVICT LABOR BILL AS AMENDED AND PREVIOUS QUESTION ORDERED ON EN-GROSSMENT. '

[H. R. 8560. Introduced by Mr. O'NEJi:L, of Missouri, passed both Houses, and signed by the President.]

An net to establish a department of labor. That there !!hall be at the seat of Government a department of labor, the gen­

eral design and duties of which shall be to acquire and diffuse among the people of the United Slates useful information on subjects connected with labor, in the mos~ general and comprehensive sense of that word, and especially upon its re­lation to capital, the holli-s of labor, the earnings of laboring men and women, and the means of promoting their material, social, intellectual, and moral pros­perity.

The department oflabor is under the charge of a Commissioner o1 Labor ap­pointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who holds his office for four years unless sooner removed, and to receive a sal­ary of $5,000 per annum.

The Commissioner of Labor is specially charged to ascertain, at as early a date as possible, and whenever industrial changes shall make it essential, the cost of producing article!! at the time dutiable in the United States, in leading coun­tries where. such articles are produced, by fully-specified units of production, and under a classificaLion showing the different elements of cost, or approxi­mate cost, of such articles of production, including the wages paid in suoh in­dustries per day, week, month, or year, or by the piece; and hours employed per day; and the profits of the manufacturers and producers of such articles; and the comparative cost of living, and the kind of living. "It shall be the duty of the Commissioner also to ascertain and report as to the effect of the tariff, and the effec~ thereon of the state of the currency, in the United States, on the agricultural industry, e pecially as to its effect on mortgage indebtedness on farmers;" and what articles are now controlled by trusts, ·and what effect said trusts haTe had on limiting production and keeping up prices. He shall also establish a system of reports by which, at intervals of not less than two years, he can report the general condition, so far as production is concerned, of the leading industries of the country. The Commissioner of Labor is -also spe­cially charged to investigate the causes of and facts relating to all controversies and disputes between employers and employes as they may occur, and which may tend to interfere with the welfare of the people of the difterent States, and

report thereon to Congress. The Commissioner of Labor sl1all also obtain such information upon the various subject!!! committed to him as he may deem de­sirable from different foreign nations, and what. if any, convict-made goods are imported into this country, and if so, from whence.

The Commissioner of Labor shall also annually make a report in writing to the President and Congress of the information collected and collated by him, and containing such recommendations as he may deem cafculated to promote the efficiency of the Department. He is also authorized tomakespecial reports on particular subjects whenever required to do so by the President or either House of Congress, or when he shall think the subjects in his charge requires it.

The Commissioner of Labor is provided with a large force of clerks, statisti­cal experts, stenographers, special agents, traveling agents, and other employes deemed necessary, and the Government appropriates nearly Sl70,000 per an­num for the successful working of this department.

[H. R. 1645. Introduced by Mr. 1\IcAnoo. Passed both Houses, and signed by the President.]

An act to limit the hours that letter-carriers in dties shall be employed per day. Be it enacl€d, etc., That hereafter eight hours shall constitute a day's work for

letter-carriers in cities or postal districts connected therewith, for which they shall receive the same pay as is now paid as for a day's wm·k of a greater num­ber of hours. If any letter-carrier is employed a greater number of hours per day than eight, he shall be paid extra for the same in proportion to .the salary now fixed by law.

(Amendment to II. R. 6437, enforcing eight hour law in Government Printing Office. Proposed by Mr. O'NEILL, of Mi-souri, February 17, 1888, passed by both Houses, and now a law.] And the Public Printer is hereby directed to r igidly enforce the provisions of

the eight-hour law in the department under his charge.

[H. R. 34();5. Introduced by Mr. O'NEILL, of ~iissouri.] An act to protect mechanics, laborers, and sen·ants in their wages.

Be it enacted, etc., That for all personal services rendered by any person acting in the capacity of mechanic, laborer, or servant in the District of Columbia and Territories of the United States, to an amount not exceeding $100, no property slmll be exempt from seizure and sale under execution: Provided, That in order to secure the benefi t!! of this a£t such mechanic, laborer, or servant shall com­mence their action within six months next o.fterthe last service hall have been rendered. ~Ec. 2. That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby re-

pealed. · Passed the House of Representatives l\1arch 20, 1888. Attest: .JNO. B. CLARK, Clerk.

[H. R. 3406. Introduced by Mr. O'NEILL, ofl\Iissouri.] _ An act to prevent the product of convict labor from being furnished to or for

the use of any Department of the Government, and to prevent the product of convict labor from being used upon public buildings or other public works. Be it enacted, etc., That from and after the passage of this act, it shall be unlaw-

ful for any agent or officer of the United States Government to purchase, or, if un­der his control, to permit the purchase, of supplies of every description to be fur­nished toorforthe use of Army or Navyofthe United States or other Government Department, or for use among any of the Indian tribes, or any oflhe Departments, or materials to be used in the erection, construction, or completion of public b ui ldings or other public works, when said supplies or materials are, in whole or in par~. the product of convict labor: And pTovided further, That in all advertise­ments for the purchase of supplies to be furnished to or for the use of any of the Departments, or for the erection, construction, or completion of public bu.ildings or public works, and in all contracts made under or in pursuance of such adver­tisements, there shall be iuserted a condition tha.~ no convict or prison labor whatsoever, or the product thereof, shall be used by or furnished to any Depart­ment of the Government, or employed or used upon any public building or work, or in the preparation or manufacture of any of the articles, materials, or supplies contracted to bs furnished therefor.

SEc. 2. That any willful breach of any of said conditions by any contractor shall autho-rize and work a forfeiture of the contract, and shall constitute a com­plete defense in bar against any claim or action against the United States for the recovery of any sum or sums under said contract; and it shall be the duty of the officer letting any such contract, upon being advised that any contractor has knowingly violated the terms of such contract, to declare the same forfeited.

~ Passed House of Representatives March 21, 188S.. Attest:· .JNO. B. CLARK, Clerl;.

[II. R. 8;24. Introduced by Mr. TABSNEY.] An act to prevent the employment of alien labor upon public buildings or ~~~~~th~blic works and in the various departments of the Government, and

Be it enacted, etc., That in all advertisements for the erection or construction or completion ot public buildings or other public works, and in all contracts made under or in pursuance of such advertisements, there shall be inserted a condition that no person who is not a bona. fide resident with!n the limits of the United States, and who is not a citizen, or who has not declared his intention to become a ci~izen thereof, in the-manner provided by law, shall be employed in the erection, construction, or completion of any public building or other public work. . ·

SEc. 2. That any willful breach of any of said conditions by any contractor shall authorize and work a forfeiture of the contra-ct., and shall constitute a com­plete defense in bar against any claim or action against the United States for the recovery of any sum or sums under said contract; and it shall be the duty of the officer letting any such contract, upon being advised that any contrac­tor has knowingly violated the terms of such contract, to declare the same for· feited.

SEc. 3. No person shall be employed in any department of the Government of the United States (except persons employed in the consular or diplomatic service abroad) who is not a citizen and resident of the United States, or who has not previously declared his intention to be(!(1me a citizen of the United States.

Passed the House of Representatives l'tiarch 21, 1838. Attest:

.JNO. B. CLARK, Clerk.

[H. R. 8665. Introduced by l\Ir. O'NEILL, of Missouri.] An act to create boards of arbitration or commission for settling controver­

sies and d.ifterences between railroad corporations and otl1er common carriers engaged in inter State and Territoral transportation of property or passengers and their employes. Be it enacted, etc., That whenever dil:ferences or .controversies arise between

railroad or other transportation companies engaged in the transportation of

·-

7700' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 18,

property or passengers between two or more States of the United States, be­tween a Territory and State, within the T erritories of the United S tates, or w iLhin the District of Columbia, and the employes of said railroad companies, which dift'e rences or controversies m ay hinder, impede, obstruct, interrupt, or aft'ect such transportation of property or passengers, if, upon the written propo­sition of either party to the controversy to submit their differences to ai·bitra­tion, the other pa rty shall accept the propo ition, -then in such event the ra il­road compa ny is h ereby authorized to select and appoint one person, and such employe or employes, as the case may be, to select and appoint another per­son, and the two persons thus selected and appoin ted to select a third person. all three of whom shall be citizens of the United States and wholly impartial and disinterested in respect to such diffe1·ences or controversies; and the three persons thus selected and appointed shall be , and they are hereby, created a nd constituted a board of arbitration, with the duties, powers, o.nd privileges h ere­inafte r set forth.

SEc. 2. That the board of arbitration provided for in the first section of this act

pear in person or by counsel, and to examine and cross-exo.mine witnesses. .A.ll its proceedings shall be transacted in public, except when in consultation for the purpose of deciding upon the evidence and arguments laid befo1·e it. The chai rman of the commission is hereby authorized to administer oaths to wit­nesses, in all investigations conducted by the commission, and such witnesses shatl be subprenaed in the ame manner as witnesses are subprenaed to appear before United States courts and commissioners, and they shall each receive the same fees as witnesses attending before United States commissioners: Prorided, That said temporary board of commissioners shall have power to limit the num­be r of witoesses in each case where fees shall be paid by the United States.

SEC. 11. All fees, expenses, and com pen ation of this commission shall be pa-id as hereinbefore provided in section 5 of this act.

Passed the House of Rep\'esentatives .A.pril18, 1888. Attest:

JNO. B. CLARK, Cle1·k.

shall possess all the powers and authority in respect to administering oaths, [H: R. 871G. Introduced by Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri, pending in the llouse as subprenaing witnesses and compelling their attendance, preserving order dur- amended, and previous question order~d on engrossment.] ing the sittings of the board, and requ iring the production of papers and wr it-ings relating aJone to the subject under investigation now possessed and belong- A bill to protect free labor and the industries in which it is employed from the ing to United Sta tes commissioners appointed by the circuit court of the United injurious effects of convict labor by confining the saldl of the goods, wares, SLates; but in no case shall any witness be compelled to disclose the secrets or and merchandise manufactured by convict labor to the State in which they produce the records or proceedings of any labor organization of which he may are produced: be an officer or member; and said board of arbitration may appoint a c!erk and I Be it en acted, etc., That every person who knowingly transports, or causes to employ a stenographer, and prescribe all reasonable rules and regulatiOns, not be delivered for transportation , for commercial purposes, from the State or Ter­inconsistent with the provisions of this act, looking to the speedy advancement ritory in which they are in whole or in part manufactured, any goods, wares, or of the differences and controversies s ubmitted to them toaconclusionaJ?-d deter- merc handise. in whole or in part manufactured by convict labor in any neni­mination. Each of said arbitrators shall take an oath to honestly, ~auly, and tentiary prison, r eformatory, or other establil;;hment in which convict labor is faithfully perform his duties, and that he is not personally interested m the sub- employ~d to or into any other State or Territory, or into the District of Colum­ject-matter in contt·oversy, which oath may be administered by any State or Ter- bia, shall be deemed g·uilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof r itor ial oflicer authorized to administer oaths. The third person so selected and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than ~.000, or by im­~ppointed a~ a foresaid shall be the presi?-e~tof said board.; and any order, find- prisonm ent not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and iJJ?prisonment at Ing, conclusiOn, or awa_rd made by a maJorlt:Y of such arb1tratorssh~ll be of. the the discretion of the court, and such goods, wa•es, or merchandise shRll be for­same force and effect as tf all three of such arbitrators concurred therem or umted feited to the United States. The importation for commercial purposes of all in ma king, the ~arne. . . . . . goods, wares, or merchandise from any foreign country into the Unjted States,

S a:c. 13. ~I ha t It. shall be the. duty ot satd board of. arb1trat.~on, 1mmed1ately which in whole or in pa rt were ml\nufactured or produced by convtct labor, is upon ~h~Ir selectu~n: to orgamze at the nearest pract1cable pomt to .the place of h ereby prohibited, and it sh~ll be the duty of the Sec1·etary.of the :r~easury to t he or1g~n _of the d1ffi?ulty or con Lrove_rsy. and to l1~r n~<;t determme the JJ?U.t- prescribe rules and rt>gulatwns for the enf~rcemer~t of th1s .PrOVls~o_n and to ters of differe nce whlCh m a y be submitted to the~ m wr1tmg by all th~ parties, enforce the same. Every person who know_mgly violates th1s proviSIOn shall g iviug them fu_ll opportunity .to be heard on oath. m person n.nd by witnesses , be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be .subject to the and ~lso_ gr~ntm~ the_m th~ r1ght to be .repre. en ted by cou~sel; ~~dafter ~n- penalties and punishment provided in this act. And th~ words good~, wares, clnd mg Its m_vest:gat wnsa1d boa~ds~a"!l pnbhclyannounce ItsdeciSion~ •. whwh. and merchandise are intended and shall be construed to mclude coal , non ore, with the findm gs ~f fact upon wh~ch It IS b~sed, shall be redu~ed to wr1tu:g and len-d ores, all kinds of marble products, lumber in all its forms, and all other signed by the arbttrators concurn_ng therein, a~d , .together w1th the test1m?ny a r ticles of commerce produced, wrought, cut, or mined by convict labor. take n in the case , shall be filed w~t!t the Co~mlSSJOner of Labo1· of the Umted SEc. 2. That it shall be the duty of the several United States dis trict attorneys Sta les, wh o shall~D:ake such dec1s1on public as soon as the same shall have to prosecute all violation!! of this act by any person making the complaint under been received ?Y h1m. . . oa th, and the same shall be heard before any district or circuit court of the

SEc. 4. T hat It shall b e the r1ght of any employes engaged m the controversy Uni ted states or Territorial court holden within the d istrict in which the viola­to a ppoint, by designation in writing, one or more p ersons to act for.the~ in tion of this act has been committed. th e selec:ion of an a rbitr a tor to r~pre~ent them up_on t~1e board of a!'b1trat10n. SEc. 3. That this act shall take effect o.t the expiration of two years from and

SEc. :>· 'rhat each me mber o_f smd tnbunal of arb1trat10n shall receive a ?Om- after its passage, except as to goods, wares, and merchandise manufactured un­pens~tJOn_ of 10 a day ~ort~et1meactua~y employed. That the clerk app?mted der existing contracts tha t have been made by any !:!late for the employment of b y sa1d tnbu_nal of arbit r:atto?JSha ll receiv~ th~ same fees a~d comi>ensatJOr:t as its convict labor, and in such cases this act shall take effecL immediately upon cle rks of Um ted Rtates cu cmt cou~ts and d1str1ctcourts r~ceive for.hke se~v1ces. the expiration of such contracts. Thflt t he stenograph er shall receiVe as full compensatton for h1s semces 10 , . . . h b J f . cents for each folio of an hundred words of tes timony taken and reduced to J.Ir. 0 NEILL, of Mtssourx. I YJ.eld t e a ance o my time. wriL! ng before said arbi t_rs. to_rs. 'l'he Un~ted. States mars~als or other persons Mr. YOST. Will the gentleman allow a question? ser v mg the. proce s of saHl tr!buna.l of arb1trat10n shal~ receive. the sam~ fees and M . 0' NEILL of Missouri. Certainly_ compen satiOn for such servtees as they would receive for hke serVIces upon 1 • .J.: • · ' • • ' p rocess issued by U nited States commissioners. That witnesses attending be- Mr. YOST. W1ll you tell tho House where the obJection to the con· fore said tribunal of arbitration shall receive the same fees as witnesses attend- sideration of the convict-labor bill came from? ing before Un ited States co~missionet:s. _'fha.tall ofsaidfeesandcompensat!on Mr O'NEILL of Missouri The last objection came from the gen-sbo.ll be payable by the Umted l:!tates 1ll hke man ner as fees and compensation • ' • a re payable in criminal ca uses under e x isting la ws: Pro1:ided, That the said tleman from Iowa [Mr. LYMAN]. tribuna l of arbitration shall ha ve power to limit the number of witnesses in J.ir YOST. No sir- the objection came from the gentleman from each case where fees shall be paid by the United S tates: .Aud provided further, Al b · ['I O.A.T' Es]' T hat the fees a.nd compensa tion of the arbitrat-ors, clerks, stenographers, mar- ::t ama n r. .: . . slla.ls. and others for service of process , and witnesses under th is act shall be Afr. O'NEILL, of M1ssoun. As the gentleman from Alabama IS not exam ined a_nd <;ertified by the United States district j udge oft he _district in which present, I can not refer to him. the arbitratiOn lS held befor e they a r e presented to the acc~untmg officers_ofthe ,. ..- YOST The g entleman from Alabama obi ected to setting apart 'l' reasu;·y D epa rtment for set tlem e nt, a nd shall then be subject to the provisions 1.ur. • • . OJ. •

o fsect ion 84.6 ofthe Revised Statutesofthe UnitedSla tes; anda-sufficientsum a d a y for the L a bor Comm1ttee unless the conVIct-lf!>bor bill was ex­o f money to pa.~ flll expenses unde r t.bis !1-Ct and to carry the same in~ effect is eluded. he_reby approprmt c:d ou~ ot _any money m the 'I.:reasury not otherwise ~ppro- 11" O'~'""EILL of Missouri I said that the last obiection came priated : And p 1·ouided Wc~wtse, _ Not JJ?Or~ than $5,000 sha!l ?e expen.ded m de- .1r. ' • OJ

fro.yi ng -the costs of any smgle mvest1gat10n by the commiSSion herem after pro- from the gentleman from Iowa. v ided for. · Mr. LYMAN. I never objected 'to the consideration of a labor bill

slt!f~·:~ ~~~;i~hecn;r:li~:~~~% ~:;c;;r'T~~;~~~i~he~'e0~~~£r:;~~~a;;;:~~ on this floor. . . . , . w ho , together with the Commissioner ?f L abor, shall constitute a temporary Mr. O ' NEILL, of J.'llssoun. You ObJeCted to a day berng set apart commi~sion for the P !.:! l·pose of examimng th e causes _of t_he ~ontroversy, the for the consideration of labor legislation. conditions a-?COl"J?pan ym g, an~ th e ~:?est means for adjustm~ lt_; the result of ~""" LY~IAN I did not I simply asked the gentleman to modifv w hich cxa wwat ton shall be Immediately reported to the Pres1dent and Con- . J..ur. ,1) • • • • • • ~ "'l'e s a nd o n tbe re ndering of suchreport the servicesofthetwocommissioners his request for a day for the Labor Comm1ttee b y mcludmg a day for ~hall 'cease. The ser_vices of the ~mmissi?n, to be ordered at the time by th~ the Invalid Pensions Committee; and I shall continue to ask that. Pre ident and constituted as herem provided, may be tendered by the Prest- O ' NEILL f M' · 'Th d ']1 b . t It d ent for the pu rpose of settling a controversy such as contemplated, either upon Mr. , o. _ISSOUII: e recor Wl eat me. on • W~S h is o wn motion , or upon the application of one of the parties to the contro- the gentleman's ObJection which prevented us from gettmg a day; 1t versy , or u pon the o.ppli<;at!on of the e~ecu~ive of a Sta~. . was not his asking me a question •

• EC. 7. '.rhat the commJsstoners prov1ded In the precedmg section shJ'lll be en- H TSON f I d' H th tl · · '-' t ' titled to r eceive $10 each p er day for each d ay's service rendered, and the ex- !IIr. JO N , O n lana.. as e gen eman any IDto:ma IOn p enscs absol~te!-y incarred in the J?e rformance of their dutie~; and the expense!! as to the reason why the Committe~ on Rules does not report Ill favor of the Comm1Bs1oner of Labor, a<>tmg as one of the commlss10n, shall also be re· of giving a day to the Labor Committee?

~!~!~~r~~!u~\~d ~t~~~sc~~~~~~:~i~~:ch~~:,~:~~fte~h1~1~~et~:i~~~!Y~~~~~~- - M r. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I know of no reason on earth except of Labor a nd app1·o•ed by the Secretary of the Inte rior. tha t they have not so reported.

SEc. S. ~lu~tupon th~ .dil·ection <?f the Preside~t, as. hereinbefore provided. ) I r. JOHNSTON, of Indiana. They ca.n do so, can they not? the commiSSlOilShnllnsitlhelocahtyofthepend lllgdlspute,ondshallhaveall ""f O'·NEILL t'"'AK ' • I th' k th' H . 'ts . d m can the powers and a ut hority given in section 2 to a board of arbitration, and shall . ~· r. , 0 .DdSsoun. ln lS ouse lll 1 WlS 0 m ake c:ueful inqui ry into the cause thereof, h ear all persons interested therein gl"e us a day. who m a y com e bef<?re it, advise. the respective pa~ties what..if anything, ought Mr. BYNUM obtained the floor.

~r~e~~d:c~!i~~b~~~!~f~ ~h~~~~~~s?~~~;~A0a~d~~~es~~h:~"J:~e~:ug,::neb: The SPEAKER pro temP.ore (l\Ir. Co~). The gentleman from In-recorded u pon proper books of r ecord to be kept in the office of the Commis- diana now has the floor for twenty mmutes. The gentleman from sioner of Labor , ~110 sl1a ll cause a copy ~her~of. to be. filed with the secretar_Y of Michigan [Mr. CHIPMAN] occupied twenty minutes of his hour, yielded thSF.~~~~-eThJ~~~~b'~eStt~!e~o~!:;;~:~~;s~~:!~:~~~~~~dv~~:~J!d t wenty minutes to ~he gentlem.a~ from Missouri [Mr. O'NEILL], and sha l l,beforeenter ing u pon their duties, be s worn tothefaithfuldischargethereof. there are twenty mmutes ren1ammg.

• The Com~issioner of Labor shall be chairman ex officio of t?e commission, and Mr. BYNUM. Twenty minutes will not be sufficient to enable me may appomt one or m ore clerks or s tenographers to act tn each controversy h I h d ] h . b f th _ o nly , which clerks or stenog raphers shall be compensated at a rate not exceed- to. conclude V! ~t ave to say, an nn ess t e mem ers. o e C0~1 i n~ $G per d ay each, and a ctual expenses incurred sha ll be reimbursed, m1ttee are willing that I should occupy probably forty mmutes, I Will

S Ec. lO .. The Comm!ssioner of Labor shall, as soon as possible after the pas- 12:ive way to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HITT] reserving my righi sage of th1s act, establish such rules of procedure as shall be approved by the - f ' • Pr"..aident; but the commission shall permit each party to a controversy to ap- to speak herea ter.

r----------""":""""........,:-::":'"--------------------:;;-;-------------------:------~~------.----

1888. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-HOUSE. 7701 -~Ir. HITT. I suggest that the gentleman go on now, with the un­

derstandinl! that the time shall be equally divided. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will endeavor to divide the

time equally. Mr. McCREARY. I now renew my proposition that the debate on

this question be closed at half past 4 o'clock. Mr. HOPKINS, of lilinois. I move to amend that proposition so

as to name 3 o'clock. Mr. BYNUM. I do not yield for any purpose of that kind. .Mr. McCREARY. I ask that at half past 4 o'clock the debate be

closed and the previous question be considered as ordered on the pend­ing amendment and on the third reading of the bill.

1\lr. HOPKINS, of rlllinois. I move to amend by naming 3 o'clock instead of half past 4 oJ clock.

Mr. BYNUM. I decline to yield for that motion. Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, have I not the right to

offer an amendment to the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has not

the floor to make any motion. The gentleman from Indiana. [l'lfr. BY­NUl\!] is entitled-to the floor.

Mr. McCREARY. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will not press his proposition, but will permit us to agree to thfl proposition I have stated, so that we may have a vote this evening.

Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. If we are going to have a vote this evening, we might as well have it at 3 o'clock.

l.fr. McCREARY. Does the gentleman withdraw his proposition? Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. No, sir; I insist upon it. Mr. McCREARY. '!'hen I withdraw my motion. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BY­

NUM] is now entitled to the floor. Mr. BYNUM addressed the Honse. The SPEAKER pro tempore (after twenty minutes bad expired).

The gentleman's time bas expired. Mr. BYNUM. No, I think not, a8 I was to occupy forty minutes of

my own hour. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understood the gentleman

from Michigan yielded twenty minutes of his time to the gentleman from Indiana.

111r. BYNUM. Yes; and it was also understood that I would then proceed for forty minutes in -,ny own bo.nr. I expressly stated that I would proceed to submit my remarks upon that understanding, and that after the twenty minutes yielded to me by the gentleman from Michigan bad expired I would then continue for forty minutes in my own hour. I would not have proceeded under any other understand­ing. The twenty minutes yielded to me by the gentleman from Mich­igan having expired, I now proceed to occupy forty minutes of my own hour.

Mr. FELTON. Allow me to ask the Chair whether there has been any understanding arrived at by which the debate on this question is limited, and whether any understanding bas been reached to take the vote at half past 4 o'clock?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. No limitation of the debate has been provided for, nor bas any agreement been come to that the vote shall be taken at half past 4 this afternoon as at one time was suggested.

Mr. FELTON. I do ngt object to the gentleman from Indiana. pro­ceeding upon that understanding.

TbeSPEAKERpro tempore. 'rhe Chair hears no objection, and the · gentleman from Indiana will proceed.

Mr. BYNUM. l'lfr. Speaker, I shall make. no apology to the House for occupying the floor at this time. I desire to bring to the atten­tion of the members of the House and to the attention of the people some matters of record, and I avail myself of this opportunity to do so.

The subject of legislation affectin~ the interests of the laboring classes has become an important matter.

Our wage-workers are in a great measure an organized class, and as such have become a most potent factor in educating and influencing the masses upon political questions . . All parties, therefore, are making great efforts to win their approbation and support.

ThEJ most ardent_professions for their interest and welfare have been and will be exp1·essed in platforms and proclaimed upon the stump.

This class of our citizens, however, have long since realized that but little faith could be put in the pledges of platforms or the profe'lsions of politicians, and that the only sure guide to the principles which con­trol a party is to be found in the record which it has made.

The members of the Republican party are boastful in their profes­sions of devotion to the interests of American labor. They profess to be its special protectors, and without their guardianship one would con­clude, from their pretensions, that our laboring classes would long since have been reduced to a condition of dependency and servitude more deplorable than that of the poorest-paid labor of Europe.

I shall attempt at this time to do little more than call attention to some of the legislation which seriously affected the welfare of our labor­ing classes, so that they may readily fix the responsibility for their en:.tctment or non-enactment where it rightfully should be.

In 1864 Congress passed an act substantially entitled an act to en­coura~e immigration. This was its ostensible purpose, but its real object was to clothe contractors, mine-owners, and manufacturers with

power to contract with and import laborers from Europe to supplant American workmen and to reduce the price of American wages.

Senator SHERMAN, in reporting this measure to the Senate, very adroitly tried to conceal its real purpose, but inadvertently disclosed the secret before concluding his statement. He said:

The special wants for labor in this country at the present time are very great. The war has depleted our workshops and materially lessened our supply of labor in e"\'ery department of industry and mechanism. In their noble response t o the call of their country our workmen in every branch of the useful arts have left vacancies which must be filled or the materialinterests of the country must suffer. The immense amount of native labor occupied by the war calls for a large increase of foreign immigration to make up the deficiency at home. Tbe demand for labor never was greater than at..present, and the fields of use-fulness were never so varied and promising. , '

It was true, as stated by Senator SHERMAN, that there was "a noble _ response to the call of their country" by the workingmen, but while absent fighting its battles their vacant places should not have been filled with cheap laborers imported from Europe under contract. Pau­pers unable to get to this country under the terms and provisions of this law could virtually ensla•e themselves in foreign countries to American contradors and American manufaeturers, and the contraet would be enforced here to the fullest extent.

The second section of this law reads as follows: SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That all contracts that shall be made by emi­

grants to the United States in foreign countries, in conformity to regulations that mny be established by the said commissioner, whereby emigrants shall pledge the wages of their labor for a term not exceeding twelve months, tore~ pay the expenses of their emigration, shall be held to be valid in law, and may be enforced in tbe .courts of the United States or of the several States and Ter­ritories; and such advances, if so stipulated in the contract, and the contract be recorded in the recorder's office in the county where the emigrant shall settle, shall operate as a lien upon any land thereafter acquired by the emigrant, whether under the homestead law when the title is consummated, or on prop· erty otherwise acauired until liquidated by the emigrant; but nothing herein contained shall be-deemed to authorize any contract contravening t-he Consti­tution of the United States, or creating in any way the relation of slavery or servitude. (U.S. Stats. at Large, vol. !5, 1863-'65.)

The extent to which the authors of this measure knew they were going is apparent from the last lines of this section-"but nothing herein contained shall be deemed to authorize any contract contraven­ing the Constitution of the United States or creating in any way the relation of slavery or servitude." _

When we ask Republicans why they took advantage of the absence of the wage-workers who were in the Army, they say it was necessary! Labor was scarce and wages were high! Will they answer why, when t.he war was over, when the armies disbanded and the men returned home to take their places, this law was not repealed? Will they in­form us why, when a half million or more of men were discharged from the mills and factories in 1873, this law was kept upon the statute­books? Will they answer why during that long period of depression, when hundreds of thousands of men were out of employment and seek­ing work, it was necessary to import, as was done under this law, large numbers of European laborers? The fact that this sta~ute remained in force nearly twenty years, eighteen after the war bad clo ed, and that every effort to repeal it in the interest of American labor was thwarted is sufficient to satisfy the most skeptic person tba tit wa5 fasb- -ioned and framed in the interest of the contractor and manufacturer. From the time of the enactment of this law till its repeal over 6,500, -000 immigrants came to our shores. How many of these left their na­tive land and came to us voluntarily upon their own resources because of their admiration for our institutions, and how many debased and vicious characters were brought here under this contract system can not be told. Laborers were imported under the provisions of this law up to the time of its repeal, and the statutes now in force prohibiting the same are being evaded in every possible way by the men who cry loudest "protection to American labor!" The Republican par ty, su­preme in all the Departments of the Government, was cognizant of the fact, but no step was taken to protect American labor from this com­petition.

Dump all the paupers and criminals of Europe and all the :Mongolians of Asia in here. What cared the manufacturers? Labor was made more dependent and wages cheaper. This was the policy and is the policy. of that party to-day. Open wide the doors for the importation of cheap labor, but close them tight against the importation of cheap clothing and cheap food. Let us see if the attention of the Republican mem­bers of Congress was ever called to this matter.

On the 13th of December, 1869, Senator Wilson, of Massachusetts, introduced a bill (S. 378} to regulate the importation of immigrants under contract. This bill was called up by him on the 22d of April, 1870, and its consideration urged; but Senator Ferry, of Michigan, ob­jected, and the bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, a ma­jority of whom were Republicans, who reported against its passage. They were unwilling 1o consider a bill to even regulate the subject four years after the war was over.

On the 5th · of February, 1870, Senator Wilson introduced another bill (S. 563) to make the importation of immigrants under contract unlawful. He made several efforts to secll!'e consideration of the same without reference to a committee, but objections were made, and on December 12, 1870, it was referred to the Oommittee on Education ap.d Labor and was never heard of again. No power was strong enough to carry a bill through the committee; the ea1·s of Repnbllcaus were deaf to all appeals. They saw American workmen out of employment,

. -·

7702 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 18,

wages going down, strikes and lock-outs daily occurnng, but none of these ~roused their attention. It remained for a Democratic House of Representatives to repeal this odious and injurious measure, and to force th~ Republican Senate to take action before anything could be accomplished. On the 8th of January, 1884, the gentleman from Ohio [M.r. }"OJ~AN] introduced a hill (H. R. 2550) to prohibit the importa­tion of foreign labor under contract. This bill passed the House on the 19th of J nne, 1884.

The bill was sent to the Senate, where it was referred to the Com­mittee on Education and Labor. It was reported back at an early day, and repeated but fruitless efforts made to secure consideration of it un­til in February, 1885, wh~ it finally passed that body. I ask every intelligent workingman in the country to examine without prejudice this record, and if he does not come to the conclusion that those who upheld thiS law for the importa.tion of contract labor for so many years were not his friends, I shall doubt his ability to select them.

CHINESE IMMIGRATION.

There is another equally important and ~nteresting question which affected the welfare and prosperity of American labor to which I desire to call attention. The capitalists of the country, not satisfied with the law giving them the power to import and enslave the pauper labor of Europe, looked with wistful eyes across the Pacific to Asia, where 300,000, OOU of Chinese laborers of greater skill and talent could be o b­tained at still lower wages. On the 28th day of July, 1 68, the Re­publican administration negotiated a new treaty with the Chinese Gov­ernment, which is known as the Burlingame treaty. Articles V and VI of this treaty provide as follows:

.5. The ,United States _of A!-Derica a~d the Emperor of Chin.a cordially recog­nize the mherent and mesttmablEf right of man to change hts home and alle­giance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigrat ion of their citizens and subjects respectively from one country to the other for the purpose of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents, etc.

6. Citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, or exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizeus or subjects of the most favored nations· nnd reciprocally, Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and exemption"' in respect to travt:ll or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nations, etc. ·

The Republican party claims to have superior intelligence and wisdom in negotiating treaties with 1oreign governments. They insist, without the least hesitation, that the rights of American citizens can safely be intrUBted to none but themselves; but you search in vain to find what additional rights and benefits American citizens secured by the Bur­lingame treaty.

Senator Grimes, in calling attention to this fact in the Senate, said: It may strike the Senate with surprise on a careful reading of the treaty of

1868 to find that in no one of the eight article;; composing it is there to be found one substantial right of value to any American citizen which he could not en­joy under the former treaties, while to Chinese subjects in the United States every privilege, except citizenship, is thrown wide open, even the ownership and working of our mines of gold and silver, which are liberties never freely granted !o a foreigner by any other government in the world.

I shall not stop to inquire what the motives of the administration were in negotL:1.ting this treaty or what power instigated it. Directly it bad but one effect, and that was to deluge the Pacific States with Chinese laborers. In 1867, the year before the adoption of this treaty, only 3,863 Chinese landed upon onr shores; while in 1869, the year after, 14,614 came; and thus it continued uutil1882, when the number had increased to 35,614. ·

pnder the law of 1864, protecting and enforcing contracts made with immigrants, _rich and powerful companies, after the adoption of the treaty, organized for the importation of this class of laborers. The cooly trade was revived and they came by hundreds and thousands, consigned to one of these companies like so many horses or cattle, and were by them hired out to work in manufactories, in mines, upon rail­roads, and in every place where A-q:~.erican labor had profitable employ­ment. The rapid increase of their numbers soon alarmed the people of California. They were an undesirable population from every considera­tion. They were. debased beyond conception; vice and immorality

. unspeakable were universal amongst them. Their abodes reeked with filth and their dens with infamy. Their presence was degrading to society and to civilization. They consumed but little, and therefore worked for wages so low that no white laborer could live in competi­tion with them. The people of the Pacific Slope, without regard to party, arose and with one voice demanded that this immigration should cease. The evils resulting from such an influx of population were so disastrous to all classes that there was no division of senti­ment No one but those profiting by it could be found to express any other sentiment than that its continuance would be ruinous.

The American wage-workers were fast being crowded out and their appeals to Congress to save them from degradation were sincere and unanswerable, but their voice was unheeded, capital reigned supreme in the councils of the Republican party; the contractor, the manufact­urer, the mine operator demanded cheap iabor, and their demands were heeded.

Mr. Speaker, I want here to call attention to a statement made by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. WooDBURN], and I do so with £:rreat reluctance, because I believe this portion of his speech is about all there is left that has not already been shown to be incorrect. He said:

Mr. Chain:nan, it was not the Democratic party but the Republican party

that passed the anti-pauper immigration bill. It was not the Democratic but ~~bo;~~~d~n c~!~~~c~~at passed a · bill prohibiting the importation of cooly

Ur. Speaker, I have already shown that the first proposition was not true. The Republican Senate never considered the question. until driven to do so by a Democratic House. I now propose to show that the Republican party never pasped, at any time, a bill to prohibit the importation of Chinese laborers under contract, but that in one or the other end of the Capitol there was a majority of the Republican votes against every such a measure . . I not only propose to show this, but to show that ~he Republican p::rty was not only opposed to the passage of any such bill, but, upon the contrary, was in favor of conferring greater rights and privileges upon the Chinese. Further, I shall show that their candidate for the Presidency, General Ifarrison, when present, without exception, voted against every bill to restrict or suspend im­migration, voted in favor of every amendment which gave greater free· dom and conferred greater rights, even to that of citizenship, upon the Chinese. The repeated efforts that were made by the Representatives and Senators ft·om the Pacific States and elsewhere to check the im· portation of Chinese laborers were without avail. Like the efforts t o have repealed the statute authorizing and protecting the importation of laborers from Europe, no attention was paid to them or the proposed measures were summarily dealt with.

On the 6th of December, 1869, Senator Williams, of Oregon, intro­duced a bill (S. 279) to regulate the immigration of Chinese and prohibit their importation under contract. On the 24th of February, 1871, Senator Chandler, of Michigan, a l{epnblican, from the Commit;.. tee on Commerce, to which the bill had been referred, asked to be dis­charged from its further consideration, and moved that it be indefi­nitely postponed. The motion was agreed to.

On the lOth of January, 1870, 1\fr. Johnson, of California, introduced ajointresolution (H. Res. 102) to regulate and restrict Chinese immigra­tion, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The com­mittee, a majority of whom were Republicans, refused to report it back to the House.

On the 6th of June, 1870, SenatorSTEWART, of Nevada, introduced in the Senate a bill (S. 973) to prohibit contracts for servile labor, but even this measure could not meet with favor at the hands of a Repub- . lican Senate, and it was defeated.

On June 7, 1 70, Mr. Sargent, of California, introduced a bill (H. R. 2168} to prohibit contracts for servile labor, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but the influences weresh·ong enough to prevent this measure from ever being reported back to that body.

On July 7, 1870, Mr. Muncen, of Ohio, in~oduced a joint resolution (H. Res. 362) in regard to the protection of our laboring classes against Chinese immigration, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, but there it remained. This was not the way to protect labor in the or>inion of the Republican party, and the resolution was pigeon­holed.

On July 9, 1870, Ur. Cake, of Pennsylvania, introduced a r~olution against the importation of Chinese coolies under contract and directing the Committee on Education and Labor to investigate the subject. ' The resolution was referred -to that committee, but was never heard of after­wards.

On the 18th of December, 1871, Mr. Coghlan, of California, introduced a bill (H. R. 755) to prohibit contracts for servile labor, which was re­ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The reference of this bill wns subsequently changed to the Committee on Education and Labor, which reported a substitute, which was recommitted to the same committee, and that was the last of it.

On the 30th of April, 1872, Senator Casserly, of California, a Dem­ocrat, having previously received a memorial on the subject from. the Legislature of his State, introduced a bill (S. 1058} to prohibit con· tracts for servile labor and to amend and enforce exi ting laws against the cooly trade. This bill, like all others of its kind, was referred to a hostile REWublican committee, and was never heard of again. What a record of devotion to the interests of American labor this is! Their petitions spurne~, their resolutions ignored, and their bills strangled in committee by the Republican party. .

This, however, is not all; it is only the beginning of the record of that party. The time arrived when they were compelled to meet the question. After ten years of agitation the laboring classes and their friends secured the consideration of measures for their protection against the further importation of Chinese, and what record did the Republican party make when forced to take a decided position? Of the three bills considered, but one received a majority of the Republic­an votes in the House, and not a single one received a majority of the Republican votes in the Senate. All the leading Republican Senators, including the Republican candidate for the Presidency, General Har­rison, voted against every mea8ure, when pre ent, that was Eroposed.

General Harrison now says that he voted against the different meas­ures because he thought they violated our treaty obligations and be­cause he did not fully understand the necessity of the le,gislation.

With all due respect to General Harrison, the record -he made, to say the least, does not support his statements. These late state­ments and discoveries should, when visions of the White House, how­ever dim and remote, loom up, be accepted with little faith. There was

'

'

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 7703 not a shadow of an excuse at any time fot any Senator or Representa­tive t,.o vote against either of the measures proposed because its provis­ions violated our treaty stipulations with China. 'l'here would have been in case of the enactment of the first measure proposed an abro­gation of some, and if the Chinese Government so determined, of all our treaty stipulations, but no violation. There would have been a repeal, but not a violation. It was a contract terminable at"the will of either party. The administration had for ten years neglected and failed, and therefore I say refused, to make an endeavor to secure any modification of the tre.aty of 1868, and there was no oLher course open for relief except through legislation. This question was fully and un­answerably met upon the consideration of the-measure first proposed.

Senator Sargent, February 13, 1879, said: _ It is also objected, and I desire to advert t.o these considerations very hastily

in passing, 1.hat there i!! a treaty with China with which, if this law is passed, there will be ft. conflict, and that a treaty is the supreme law of the land; that we have no right to legislate so as to abrogate a treaty or contravene its pro­visions. U this were true it would be a fatal objection to this legislation. That it is not true in principle· is settled by the practice of this Government from time immemorial, It is not true as shown by the action of our executive depar~ ment and our judicial authorities.

In L'i51 John J . Crittenden, Attorney-General <Jf the United States, in what was called the Florida claims case, decided that a subsequent law of Congress repealed a prior treaty, set it aside. In 1870 the same doctrine was held by At­torney-General Ackerman. The doctrine was held by the Unit-ed States circuit court ins case where the interests of Russin. were involved, where by treaty with Russia we had provided that hemp from Russia should be received at as low a rate of dnty as that from any other oountry whatever, and subsequently we passed a tariff law which provided that Russian hemp should pay $4() a ton and Manila hemv should pay S20 a ton.

An action of assumpsit was brought in a United States court against the col­lector of New York to recover the difierence in the duties, on the ground that the nghts of the parties were measured by tlie treaty and could not be affected by the subsequent statute. The United States court held that a subsequent law repealed pro t.anto the prior treaty, and that the power must reside in Congress, because the Presid ent and Senate could not have the power to bind the interests of the people beyond any relief by Congress, placing it upon the hjgh ground that Congress itself, composed of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the President of the United States were those who must have the final decision upon all questions involving treaties and the power to set them aside. From that decision down through the Clinton bridge case, through the Choctaw case and others, the courts have uniformly held to this doctrine, and I only regret that I have not time to call the attention of the Senate to these decisions ia ex­tenso. The last decision was made by the United States Supreme Court re­cently, fuUy sustaining the doctrine to which I advert.

Senator Allan G. Thurman, of Ohio, said: ll.Ir. President, I have a. very few words to say on this bill, and scarcely any­

thing at all upon the general question involved in H. I shall assume the argu­ments already made at this session and at previous ~;~essions have convinced the Senate that a limit ought to be placed upon the emigration of Chinese to the Unit-ed States. if, indeed, that migration ought not to be stopped altogether. What I shall say, therefore, will relate mainly to the mode by which a stop or limit is to be put to that migration. It has been said that it can only be done by the negotiation of a new treaty. 1 do not know that that proposition has been distinctly advocated up<Jn this floor, but if it does lurk in the mind of auy Sen­ator, I be~ him to listen to the very few observations that I have to make u pon it. To me it seems perfectly clear that the proposition can not for a moment be sustained. and that it would be ruinous to this country or to any other to hold that a. treaty can only be put an end to by the n egotiation of another, for that would put you completely at the mercy of the p rty with whom you had nego­tiated a . treaty. Take. for instance, this very case. If we can only put an end to this treaty by negotiating a new treaty 'vith China, then it is in the power of China, by refusing to negotiate a new treaty, or such a one as we desire, to hold us to this treaty, however detrimental to our interests it may be.

Mr. HAMLIN. Will the Senator allow me to ask him if he knows of any one who holds that doctrine? ·

ll.Ir. THURMAN. I said I did not know. General Harrison had not been discovered at that time. [Laughter

and applause on Democratic side.] Mr. Thurman continuing, said:

Treaties ft.re like partnerships. There is no such thing as an indissoluble partnership. There is no such thing as an indissoluble treaty. Either party may declare it abrogated.

I say, ther~fore, 1\-lr. President, that the true way is, there having been no modification of this treaty by the treaty-making power, and, so far as we know, no attempt having been made to modify it, there having been nothing of that kind done, many, many years having elapsed since ~treaty was made and the evils growing every year greater and greater, and the danger to which we are exposed by this. migration becoming every year more and more imminent, it is now the duty of Congress without delay to t!l.ke this matter in hand.

[Applause on Democratic side.] Could there have been a doubt in the mind of any Senator or any

other person upon this question? There was nothing left for Congress to do but to pass the bill and repeal the provisions of the treaty. The Republican administration, the treaty-making power, for ten years had ignored the appeals of all classes and failed to take any st-eps whatever. The Democratic party and its representatives werA not so tender of the feelings of the Chinese Government that they were willing to longer tolerate this abomination. Our own citizens were the sufferers; their rights were in peril, and it was no time to stop to see whether the pro­posed measure for their relief met the approval of the good graces of the Emperor of China or not. House bill No. 2423, to restrict Chinese emigration, by limiting the number of emigrants to be transported by vessels to the United States to fifteen each trip, passed the House of Representatives on the 28th of January, 1879, by the following vote: Yeas-Democrats 104, Republicans 51, totall55. Nays-Republicans 56, Democrats 16, total 72.

A majority of the Republican members voted against the bill, while of the Democratic members more than six out of seven voted in favor of it. In the Senate the Tote was as follows: Yeas-Democrats 22, Re­publicans 19, total 41. Nays- Republicans 20, Democrats 8, Inde­pendent 1, total 29. In order that there may be no controversy about

the votes on this and other measures to which I shall call attention, I have here and shall append to my remarks a tabulated vote upon all of them.

This bill was vetoed by President Hayes. His objections were not .. that Congress had no power to enact such a law, but that it contravened articles 5 and 6 of the Burlingame treaty. Upon the question as to whether the bill should pass, the objections of the President to the con­trary notwithstanding, the vote in the House of Representatives was as follows: Yeas-Democrats 88, Republicans 22, totalllO. Nays-Re­publicans 81, Democrats 15, total 96. Eighty-eight Dep:10crats voted for its passage over the President's veto and only 15 against it; while 81 Republicans.voted against its passage and only 22 for the same. The bill failed for the want of a two-thirds majority.

The Republican party not ·only prevented legislation on this subject as long as they had the power to do so, but when unable to longer sup­press ita large majority of them voted against ~he proposed leg~lation, and, when defeated in Congress, the veto of the President was used as a. last resort. The administration, in the fall of 1880, realized that something must be done; thatpublic.sentimentwould no longer toler­ate inaction. A new treaty was negotiated with China; or, more prop­erly, the Burlingame treaty was modified so that the Government of the United States might regulate, limit, or suspend for a reasonable period the immigration of Chinese laborers.

Under this treaty, made on the 17th of September, 1880, we reac­quired the power to limit or suspend the immigration of Chinese la­borers for a reasonable period of time.

General Harrison became a member of the Senate on the 4th of March, 1881. The objections that had been urged against the bill in the prior Congress, namely, that it contravened our-treaty stipulations, if there was the least excuse for them, did not, in the remotest degree, lie against a bill regulating, I.inliting, or suspending the immigration of Chinese laborers after the ratification of the new treaty. In conformity with the provisions of the modified treaty, Senator Miller, of California, introduced a bill (S. 71), the first section of which was as follows:

That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act and until the expiration of twenty years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers iuto the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come or having so come after the expiration of ninety days to remain within the United States. ·

This was the first bill General Hanison was called to vote upon. Where were the treaty stipulations to be found that would be violated by its passage? If General Harrison was so firmly convinced that this bill would so violate our obligations that his conscience would not per­mit him to support it, why did he not rise in his place in the-Senate and give to the country, and especially to his constituency at least, a brief statement of his objections? The opportunity was tendered to him. The gage of battle was thrown down by Senator MORGAN, of Alabama, who said:

Has the power been denied, or will any Senator here rise in his place and deny it, that the Congress of the United States by the enactment of a statute has the right to repeal any treaty that has been adopted and ratified by the treaty-making power? .

Will any Senator undertake to sav that the treaty-making power of this coun­try is not after all subordinnte to the legislative power? If he does he will deny the whole legislative history of our oountry, and he will set aside and hold for naught the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is the right and province of the legislative power of this country to repeal treaties where they are found to contravene the best interests or general welfare of the peo­ple.

Was General Han-ison's opposition because of the length of time pro­posed? There was no other conceivable objection. How conscientious ·he must have been. No matter what hardships wen~ being inflicted upon American lab01·ers; no matter what their sufferings might be, every doubt must be· resolved in favor of the Chinese. Sir, had he borne a commission to the United States Senate from the Emperor ot China instead of from the State of Indiana, he could not have served his majesty more faithfully or guarded with greater vigilance the in-terests of his subjects. ' .

General Harrison's oppositi~n to this measure was upon other grounds. The amended treaty was as plain as language could make it. The power to suspend the immigration of Chinese laborers was, in plain­terms and express words, surrendered to the United States, and that was all that it proposed to do. If the time, in his judgment, was un­reasonable, why did he not seek to shorten it? This shallow pretext that he now makes might be believed by members of llis own party if his record upon the subjectended here, but it does not; his subsequent -votes too clearly disclose the convictions he entertained and which in­fluenced and controlled his actions.

It is not, however, with General Harrison alone that I :un dealing, but with the Republican party as well. He entertained the views of his party upon this question. The opposition made to this measure by the leading Republican Senators was not that it was in violation of any treaty, but that it was in violation of the natural rights of the Chinese. Upon the passage of this bill in the Senate the vote was as follows: Yeas-Demo«rats 30, Republicans 8, total38. Nays-Repub­licans 22, Democrat 1, Independent 1, total 24. In the House of Rep­resentatives it was as follows: Yeas- Democrats 98, Republicans 61, Independents 8, totall67. Nays-Republicans 62, J!emocrats 4, total, 66. If the gentleman fr<?m Nevada will cast his eyes over this vote he

·•

\

7.704 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 18,

will find that in the Senate 22 Republican Senators voted against the it, nd only 9 for it. Mr. Speaker, does it require more proof to sat­bill and only 8 in favor of it, while in the Honse 61 members of his isfy the great body of the American people as to grounds of the opposi-

.. party supported it, and 62 voted against it, a majority of his part.y tion of General Harrison and his party to this legislation? in both Houses voting against it. It, however, by Democratic support, It was not that they believed ita violation of existing treaties, but be­passed, but fell a victi m to the veto of President Arthur. In a short ca.use they believed that Chinese laborers, skilled aud unskilled, and all paragraph ofthe President's veto message may be found the secret of otherclasses, shouldhavetherighttocomehere,notonlytolabor, but to the opposition of him.-elf and his party to this legislation. In speak- vote, to hold office, to legislate, to govern as well as be governed by ing of the Chinese he said: American labor. What other motive influenced General Harrison to

No one can say thnt the country has not profited. by their work. They were vote to admit them to citizenship? This section in no wise violated any ln!gely instr':lmentnl in constructing th~ railways which conn_ect the Atlant~c provision of our treaty with China. It was to carry out and enforce ~d~s\~;.Pacific. The States o: the Pacific Slope are full of evidences of their such a provision. In all the later treaties made between the United

. . States and China it had been expressly stipulated that nothing therein He~e~ summed up m•a f~w words, ~ay be_ f~und the secret ?f the I contained should ]?e construed to confer the rights of citizenship upon

oppos1t10n of G.eneral Harnson and his Republican colleagues m the the citizens of either in the other country. The late Mr. Orth, at th13 Senate to the bill. ti b f thi H f I d' · k' th' b

Chin 1 b h •t fit bl d b t to tl me a mem er o s ouse rom n 1ana, In spea rng upon 18 sn _ ese a or was c eap; I was pro a e; an t e con rae rs, 1e ject said.

mannfactur~rs, and the owners ?f mines, who have alway~ controlled II~ take~ no interest in our Government! Do you ruea.n by this that he does the Republican party, wanted It and were loath to see It excluded not immediately on his arrival repair to the" sand lot-s" of San Francisco and from the country. harangue the boisterous multitude upon their special duty on election days?

When the bill was returned to the Senate with the objections of the T_his obj_ection c?mes with o. poor grace whe~ it .is known that we ~efuse to gi\"e . . . . htm a n Interest m our Goverument or permtt h1m to assume the r1ghts and re•

President the vote as to whether It should pass notwithstanding the sponsibilities of citizenship. We deny to him the rights which we cheerfully same resulted as follows: Yeas-Democrats 31, Republicans 6, total ac~rd to eve;y ~ther irr~:migrant, and, as if to emphasize this denial, the fiftee_nth 37. Nays-Republicans 28 Independent 1 total 29· Harrison voting s~ctJon of tins bt_ll pr<?vtdes tha_t ~ereaf~er no State cour~ or cou!t of _the U~nted · th t' ' ' ' !::!tales shall n.dmtt Clunese to c1t1zensb1p, and all laws m conflict wtth thlS aat! rn e nega 1ve. arc hereby repealed.

The ~ill vet.oed ?Y P~esident Arthur as t~en modified so that the Senator HoAR, of M:assachu~etts, April 25, 1882, said: suspen~10n of.Im.JID~~tlOn s.honld be for ten m~tead of twent~ years. I will not deny to the Chinaman, any more than I will to the negro, or the Irish-This bill, wh1ch ongmated IU the Honse, con tamed the followrng sec- man, or Caucasian, the rig hi to bring his labor, bring his own property to our

.... tions: shores and the right to fix such a price upon itnsaccordingto his own judgment SEC. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall ad·

mit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby re­pealed.

SEC. 15. That tlJC word!! "Chinese laborers," wherever used in this act, ehall be construed to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.

This bill passed the Honse of Represeritative3 by the .following vote: Yeas-Democrats 103, Republicans 91, Greenbacker8 7. Nays-Re­publicans 34, Democrats 3. This was the first and only vote, either in the Honse or the Senate, during this long struggle, in which a major­ity of the Republicans voted in iavor of the suspension of emigration.

This bill was reported to the Senate and referred· to the Committee on Foreign Relations. It was reported back at an early day, the com­mittee proposing a number of amendments, amongst others to strike out. sections 14 and 15. Section 15 simply provided that the words "Chinese laborers" should include both skilled and unskilled laborers and miners.

It was at this point and upon this amendment that General Harri­son threw off that mantle of frigid silence which had continually con­cealed his great wisdom and statesmanship about which we bear so much of late. He could content htmself no longer. His forbearance ceased at this attempt to include within the provisions of the law the skilled Chinaman who could delve in the mine, work upon the cigar­maker's bench, labor in the shoe factory and in the tailor shop. Ris­ing from his phice in the Senate,- he said: '"ill the Senator from Ore6on allow me to make c. suggestion to him? He

reud an extract from a paper to the effect that the word "laborers " as used in the treaty or as used in the law m3y be limited by a meaning applied to those who are unskilled. If the courts should so decide, giving that meaning to the word "laborers" as used in the treaty, would the enator from Oregon be in favor of going beyond what we are authorized to do by our treaty?

Mr. Speaker, this, substantially, was all the utterance of this great statesman and extremely conscientious Senator to this entire legislation. How extremely ca.reful of the interests of his Chinese constituency. Tbe Chinese embassy, it had been stated, had no objection to that pro­vision of the bill, but General Harrison could not. think of allowing ~e same to be adopted. The sacrea rights of the Chinamen were con­stantly before his mind. He could think of nothing else, could see nothing else. Why quibble over such a petty matter when the hap­piness, the· welfare, a!Jd almost the life of American men and women depended upon the speedy adoption of some measure of relief? Gen­eral Harrison knew, if he knew anythin~ abontlaw, that the definition, if too broad, could do no harm; he knew that words were more strictly construed in penal statutes than elsewhere, and thatitwasalways safest, if words were used in such enactments in their broadest sense, to so de­fine their meaning. He, however, was not alone upon this proposition. His Republican colleagues were nearly all with him. Upon the motion to strike out section 15 the vote stood as follows: Yeas-Republicans 31, Democrat 1, Independent 1. total33. Nays-Democrats 29, Repub­licans 3, total 32. Harrison voted in the affirmative.

This amendment, although agreed to in Committee of the Whole, was rejected in the Senate, Harrison still voting in the affirmative. Upon the amendment to strike out section 14, which prohibited the courts from admitting Chinese to citizenship, the vote stood as follows: Yeas-Republicans 28, Democrat 1, Independent 1, total 30. · Nays­Democrats 31, Republicans 5, total 36; Harrison.. voting in favor· of the amendment. The vote upon the final passage of the bill in the Senate stood as follows: Yeas-Democrats 32, Republicans 9, Independent 1. Nays-Republicans 24, Democrat 1; Harrison voting against the bill. If the gentleman from Nevada will investigate the vote on the passage of this measure he will find that 24 Republican Senators voted against

and his own interest may seem to him best. I denounce this legislation not only ae a \iolation of the ancient policy of the American Republic, not only as a violation of the rights ofhuman nature it elf, but e pecia.lly ns a departure from the doctrine to which the great party to which I belong is committed in its latest declaration of principles.

Here we have a cle.ar and bold statement of the position of the Re­publican party upon this question. This statement was unchallenged. No Republican SeRator repudiated it either for himself or his party. General Harrison he,ud, acquiesced, and accepted it as the reason for his opposition to the measure; and the paltry, trifling, and frivolous ex­cuse he now attempts to Illlke, in the hope of winning the support of the laboring classes he did not deig n to consider for a moment in the dozen or more votes that he c.."lSt, will only subject him to greater rid­icule and contempt. This is not all the evidence going to show that his opposition to this legislation was because he wished to open wide the doors to Chinese emi~rants and to welcome them to full fellowship as citizens of this Republic.

In 18 0 in the city of Indianapolis a number of Chinamen were in­duced by Republicans to declare their intentions of becoming citizens. Upon this declaration they were marched to the polls and voted tho Republican ticket. That General Harrison was cognizant of the in­tentions of his party to vote these persons there can be no don bt. He was the candidate of his party for the United States enate, active in politics, and the OJ.ths were administered to them1 by his most inti­mate friend and loyal supporter. In addition to this it ha.s been pub­licly charged in the Indianapolis Sentinel, and not denied by him, that during the agitation of this question he re;:trl a production before a literary cluh in that city advocating in strong terms the right of the Chinese to become citizens of the United States.

Why, Mr. Speaker, the Republican party had such a tender re.:;ard for the rights of the Chinese that itplacedjoss-sticks and jo~ -lights on the free-list while the Bible was made to bear a duty of 25 per cent. [Laughter and applause on Democratic side.]

I notice, however, that General Harrison and his friends offP-r another excuse for his position on this q nestion. They say that he did not un­derstand the questiOn at the time, but th&.t h e has since learned all about it and is all right now. Of all the subterf.!ge that has been at­tempted this certainly is the shallowest. This question had engaged the serious attention of the American Congress, when he entered the Senate, for more than ten years.

In February, 1879, Mr. Thurman said in the Senate: l'l!r. President, this is no new subject. It can not be contended for a moment

that this subject is sprung upon the American Congress now for the fir t time. Every Senator who has held a place upon this floor from the Pacific coast since I have had the honor to sit llere, without regard to his political proclivities, without regard to his party connections or affiliations, ha been urging nnd earn­estly urging upon us the enactment of some such law at this. I believe the same thing may be said of every Representative from the Pacific slope in the other branch of the Legislature. They have called our attention to it again and again; they have called it by resolutions; they have called our attention to it by the able arguments of their Senators and Representatives; they have called attention to it by their laws and their constitutional conventions ; they have caused the two great political parties of this country to consider it in their na­tional conventions. And it will notdoto say now that this thing is sprung here in hot haste upon the Senate of the United States. It is time, in my judgment, :Mr. President, for us to act upon it and now is the proper moment. ·

It had agitated the minds of the people and especially the laboring classes for over twelve years. . General Harrison's entire absence of as­sociation with and want of sympathy for the great masses of the people may have destroyed his intuition of this question, but if he ~ad never heard of the subject before he entered the Senate, he heard enough dur­ing the debate to have satisfied any person with one spark of sympathy for that class of our citizens who were compelled to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow. He may daily mount his platform during this

'

1888. • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE .

campaign and declare "that the standard of American wages must be maintained," but I challenge any one to point out a single word or ex­pression of sympathy by him for the wage-workers during this entire debate. From the beginning to the end he remained callous, hea.r-t­less, and immovable to every appeal. [Applause.]

Senator JoNES, of Nevada, presented the question of protection to our own laborers mast eloquently and truthfully, and, coming from a Republican, there is a double significanee and force in his language as applied to the present. He said:

I have noticed, Mr. President, that most of those who are in favor of the largest liberty being extended to the Ohinese immigrant to this country are also in favor of a tariff-a tariff which has been urged as necessary to protect the American laborer from the degradation of competition with the pauper labor of Europe, as it is usually termed. In reality, if we may judge of their motives by the action of the men who nre now advoca.ting a tariff, it was not the American laborer they wished to protect against the pauper labor of Europe, but it was the American capitalist, the lordly manufacturer, tha t they wished to protect against the free competition of the capitalist of Europe. Our capitalist m anu­facturer wanted a larger interest on his money than the capitalist of Europe wa s willing to accept, and he was given the benefit of a tariff.

Let us see how that tariff works. It works in this wise, that everything tbat the capitalist manufacturer has to sell he sells in a protected market, be sells in a market in which foreign capitalists can not compete with him.

How is it with what he has to buy? For the principalo.rticle be bas to buy­to wit, the labor of men-he demands free trade in the broadest sense, not only free trade in bringing in laborers of our own race who can soon a ccommodate thelllilelves to our conditions of life, but the bringing in a class oflaborers who h ave been inured to poverty by thousands of years of training. The capitalist :;;t!J~e broadest free trade for that, his own market in any event being pro-

Now, how is it with the laborer? Everything he wants to buy he bo.s to buy from his capitalist master iu a protected market; everything he has to sell, to wit, his labor (and, unlike the capitalist, he can not hold it o.way from sale; unlike the capito.list, he <mn not wait for better times, or travel here and there where he pleases to sell it, but be must sell it every day), he must sell in the openest m arket in the world. This iS-the theory in favor of the laborer that the gentleman [Mr. DAWES, of Massachusetts] propounds to us. We reject it, and by this bill propose to bar out thi3 degrading, this shocking competition with our own people. And yet be tells us we are striking a blow at labor, that. we are proposiug to inflict injury on the laborers of our country.

Ah I sir, when tlle artisans and laborei'S of this country shall be made to un­derstand that they are subjected to free tro.de in labor they will demand as one of the conditions of their existence that they shall have an o;=~ en market in which to buy th:1twhich theywftntif it is an open market in which they must sell their labor, the only thing they have to sell. They will neve1· consent to a tariff on bales a nd boxes and hampers of goods coupled with free trade in hu­mnn brain and muscle.

The Senator from Massachusetts [:M:r. D."-WES] told us that he wanted the American people to know that this bill was a blow struck at labor. Yes, sir, it is a blow struck at degraded, underpaid, underclothed, underfed labor, and it is a blow in favor of that fair remuneration which t he forces of our civiliza­tion up to this hour have decreed t.hat the laborer should ~:et.

Senator GEORGE, of Mississippi, presented the question with a fervor and sentiment that would have aroused the innermost feelings of the very soul of a man who had one atom of sympathy tor those doomed

- to endless toil. He said: It will really and truly protect .o\.merican labor. It furni!!hes no sham pro­

tection in the shape of a. tax levied on all the labor of the country for the bene­fit oftbe capitalist, in the hope (ofte n , if not always, a vain one) that he wilJ di­vide it and give some small part to that inconsiderable number of laborers whom be employs. •

This biU protects the American laborer directly and clearly, and not in a. roundabout and second-hand wo.y. It gives this protection by its own force and the vigor of its own beneficent -provis ions, independent of either the mag­nanimity or the charity of another, -and that other too directly interested in withholding the protection.

As so well shown in the very able and exhaustive discussion of this subject by the Senator fl'Om California. [Mr. Miller], the Chine e la borer has an ad­vantage over the American laborer. This is an undue advantage. It does not arise from superior industry,larger intelligence, or greater skill . It comes from the simple fact that the one is an American citizen, with the hopes and aspira­tions of an American citizen, and charged with the performance of the high duties to h is country and his family incident to American citizenship; the other h as none of these. F or ages he h as from necessity bee n inured to that bard and scanty sort of living, joined to incessant toil, which ba r ely supports life. To compete with him the American laborer must be reduced to the same stand­ard of living, condemned to the same ceaseless toil. ,.

Are we prepared, sfr, to invite the American laborer to this competition-to yoke him with this fellow to plow the fields, delve in the mine, or work in the shops of capital seeking the cheapest labor? Sir, we want no such laborers either foreign o'r native. We want no class that can or will accept the bar~ nece sa.ries of life only as the price of its labor. We want no class to whose vis­ion is forever closed all prospect of advancement, comfort, independence and progress. If there be such now anywhere in this broad land, it would b~ nur first and highest duty, so far as we had constitut ional power, to lift the dark veil of despair wbi~h shuts out the prospect of elevation and advancement. It is our duty to dignify and ennoble labor, not to debase and degrade it.

• * • • • • • It is, sir, in my judgment, our duty to pass this bill. To reject it is to invite

to our !<bores millions of an inferior and degraded race to drag down to their o 'Yn level the American la borer.

Here was General Harrison's opportunity to show his sympathy for the wage-earners of his own country. Here was a test. He refused to reeognize them in a time of need and they will not accept his com­pany now, however much he may boast of his friendship for their cause. Their motto is to put none but tried and true on guard. Mr. Voghlan, of California, tersely but truly stated the real animus of the opposition of the Republican party to this legislation when he said:

But the oppositio!l. to this bill y; hich I most fear comes nei~her from igno­rance of the enormities of the Chmese slave-trade nor from a. miSapprehension of the character of the Chinese. It comes from the capitalists' cry that the in­flux of Chinese cheapens the wo.ges of labor. This is the true enemy of this bill, let gentlemen sugar-coat it as they will.

Mr. Speaker, the injuries inflicted upon the working men and

women of California can -not well be conceived by those of us whose States and cities have never been blighted by this immigration. They constitute about one-fourth of the working population ofSan Francisco to-day. In the manufacture of clothing, cigars, boots and shoes, and in fact in all the industries, they are rapidly making their wa.y and excluding American workmen from employment. From the report of the special committee of the board of supervisors of San Francis~ in 1885 on the condition of the Chinese quarters I q note the following:

In the manufacture of clothing, ladies' underwear, shirts, etc., 1,245 sewing machines Rre kept actively at work all opero.ted by male laborers with a. skill that is equal to the best efforts of the American woman, as well as the Ameri­can man, in this direction, and all run with such quick-handed, untiring energy, that it suggests one of the most curious physiological problems of tlTe day to understand how a people, nurtured and fed as they are, can possess the vitality and physico.l force necessary to the results which they achieve in this direction.

Most of this labor is carried on by "piece work" and to fill orders for large " down-town commercial houses" engag ed in the sale of the class of goods thus produced. The heavy, strong-stitched jean overalls which find so large a mar­ket on the coast are made by the Chinese workmen at the rate of about 55 cents per dozen pairs. The work thus produced-at a price which would re­duce the American worker, ma.le and female, to a lower level than the "wo­man" in "The Song of the Shirt "-the Chinamnn thrives upon' and is prosper­ous and happy. But it is a prosperity and happiness that is based upon a. mode of life that a homele s cur upon tbe streets might not envy, upon which tbe American laborer could not exist until a succession of generations had so bru­talized and blunted his race proclivities thHt be had dege••erated into a. condi­tion worse than barbarism and become a. curse to civilization, instead of what be is to-day, the vital strength of a nation.

We are now told, however, that in 1884 and in 1886 the Senate passed measures to restrict the immigration of Chinese, and that General Harri­son did not oppose them, and that his silence should be accepted as an indorsement of them. What strange logic ! If he had changed his opinions, if he had acquired new light on this question, is it not more reasonable that he would have said so than that he would have mutely disavowed his long-cherished principles and stultified his most conspicuous record?

His friends are boastful of his powers of speech-they say he is no Lilliputian-yet upon these occasions upon a matter of great interest and importance he did not open his mouth to explain his position when the action of the Senate was to be in direct contravention of his principles and his record. Sir, this is but a poor apology to those whose interests were so vitally affected by this immigration and who had won their victory in spite of the opposition of General Harrison and a majority of his party.

The passage of the act of 1882 forever settled the policy of this Gov­ernment upon the subjectofChinese immigration. SincethennoRep­resentative or Senator has raised his voice in favor of it. General Harrison knew in 1886 that more than twenty-five thousand organized wage-workers in Indiana. were, without regard to their political opin­ions, opposed to this immigration, and as a candidate for re-election to the-Senate he dared not even call attention to his former votes, much less again place himself on record as favorable to it, so he silently let the bills pass. Whether he voted for them or against them, or whether he slipped into the cloak-room and did not vote at all, the records do not disclose. Is it possible that a record of more than a dozen votes against the restriction of this immigration and two in favor of confer­ring the rights of citizenship upon these people vanishes upon the mere silence of this august personage?

The Republican members of the Senate never passed a measure re­stricting this immigration or permitted one to pass until a majority of their votes were recorded against it, until after the act of 1882 became a law, but since then they have been swift to legislate upon this ques­tion. 'l'he bill under consideration, if it had been passed by the House as it came from tlle Senate, would have left us without any law what­ever upon the subject except at the pleasure of the Chinese Govern­ment. Instantly it would have repealed existing laws, while its other provisions would not have taken effect until the Chinese Government ratified the pending treaty. _

The bill under consideration is in conformity with a treaty nego­tiated by our Government with China on the 12th of Ma1·ch last. The first section of the proposed treaty provides-

That for a. period of twenty years, beginning with the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, the coming, except under the conditions hereinafter specified, of Chinese laborers to the United States shall be abso­lutely prohibited;

The Senate amended this section by adding the following: And this prohibition shall extend to the return of Chinese laborers who are

not now in the United States, whether holding return certificates under exist.: ing laws or not.

The treaty as first negotiated was certainly strong enough in its pro­visions. It was satisfa-ctory to everybody who for twenty years had been contending for a prohibition of this immigration, but it seems that its terms were not sufficient to satisfy tlte Republican members of tho Senate, who had up to that time opposed every measure of restriction. That this amendment has had a reverse effect to its provisions is per­fectly evident. By i ts adoption the treaty had to be again sent to the Chinese Goverament for ratification in its amended form. That Gov­ernment can withhold its ratifi<'ation until every Chinaman holding a. return certificate gets back. The complaints are numerous that our present laws are not effective, and that Chinese laborers are coming in

.,

7706 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 18,

daily in violation of them. The delay, therefore, occasioned by the Senate amendment, will not only let all those that hold certificates have time to return, but will also aLow all those that may be able to get in in Tiolation of law. Its adoption has therefore resulted in in­creastng instead of restricting the number of immigrants.

The Senate is so earnest in its efforts to now exclude the Chinese that it can not wait for a ratification of the treaty, but has passed this bill to take effect upon the happening of that event. They refused to even consider a measure to regulate this evil for ten years. I have shown that bill after bill was introduced in the Senate from 1869 to 1879, and not one of them was even taken up and considered. A large majority of the Republican members of that body voted against the bills to sus­pend immigration for twenty and ten years, as I have specifically shown, and upon the grounds that the Chinese had a natural right to come here and to bring their property and to work atw bat and forw hat they chose. But now: that the Chin e have consented to remain away for twenty years, they can . not wait for that Government to ratify the treaty be­fore passing a law to enforce its provisions.

What, Mr. Speaker, has brought about this sudden change? Why thi abandonment, without a struggle and without a word, of the grec'l.t principles of the Republican party for which the Senator from Massa­chusetts so earnestly contended.

I have searched the records but can find no expressions of repentance, no confessions o( sins, no prayers for forgiveness-al). is darkness. Can it be, 1\Ir. Speaker, that this great, sudden, silent and mysterious change has taken place because an election is to be held in the coming Novem­ber.

I hope this bill will unanimously pass. The Democratic me~bers of this House can give it an earnest support without swallowing tbeir words or stultifying their records. [Great applause on Democratic side.]

Vole in the House of Representatives, January 28, 1879, on the bill (H. R. Ko. 2423) to restrict Chinese immigration.

Acklcn, Ln. Aiken, S.C. Atkins, Tenn. Banning, Ohio Beebee, N.Y. Bell, Ga. B enedict, K. Y . Bicknell, Ind. Blackburn, Ky. Bliss,N. Y . Blount, Ga. Boone, Ky. Brigllt, 'l'enn. Buckner. Mo. Cabell, Va. Caldwell, Ky. Oald well, Tenn. Chalmers, ?Jliss. Clark, 1\Io. Clarke, Ky. Cobb, Ind. Cook, Ga. Covert, N.Y. Cox, N.Y. Cravens, Ark. Crittenden, Mo.

Aldricb. ru. Bailey, N.Y. Baker, Ind. Baker, N.Y. Bayne,Pa. Blair, N.H. Brentano, Ill. Brewer. Mich. Calkins, Ind. Campbell, Pa. Cole,l\Io. . • Cox, Ohio. Cummings, Iowa

Bouck, "\Vis. Brag.g-, Wis. Candler, Ga. Cutler, N.J.

Bacon, N.Y. Bagley, N.Y. Banks, Mas&. Bisbee, Fla. Briggs, N.H. Brogden, N.C. Burchard, Ill. Burdick, Iowa Bundy, N.Y . Cain, S.C. Cannon, Ill. Cas,vell, Wis. Chittenden ,N. Y. Clark, Iowa

YEAS.

DEMOCRATS-104.

Davidson, Fla. Dibrell, Tenn. Dickey, Ohio Durham, Ky. Eden, lll. Elam,La. Ellid, La. Evins, S.O. Ewing, Ohio Felton, Ga. Finley, Ohio Garth, Ala. Gause, Ark. Gib on, La. Giddings, Tex. Glover, Mo. Gunter, Ark. Henkle, Md. Hewitt, Ala. Hewitt, N.Y. Herbert, Ala.. Hamilton, Ind. Harrison, DJ. Hatcher, Mo. Hartzell, Ill. Hooker, Miss .•

House, Tenn. Huuton, Va. Jones, Ala. Jones, N.H. Kenna, W.Va. Kimmel, Md. Knapp, Ill. Landers, Conn. Ligon, Ala.

· Lockwood, N.Y. Luttrell, Cal. l\Iackey, Pa. :Maish, Pa, 1\Ianning, Miss. Martin, W.Va. Martin, N.Y. Mc1\1ahon, Ohio :rtlills, Tex. 1\Ioney, Miss. 1\Iorse, 1\!ass. Muldrow, 1\liss. Patterson, Colo. Potter,N. Y . Rea, Mo. Reagan. Tex. Reilly, Pa.

REPUBLICANS-51.

Davis, Cal. Deering, Iowa Ellsworth, 1\fich. Errett,Pa. Evans, Ind. Fort, Ill. Fo ter, Ohio. Freeman, Pa. Hale, Maine.

- Hanna, Ind. Harmer,Pa .. Hayes, Ill. Ilazelton, Wis.

IHscock, N.Y. Hubbell, Mich. Ittner, Mo. Keightley, Mich. Ketcham,N.Y. Killinger, Pa. Majors, Nebr. Metcalfe. Mo. Neal, Ohio

·O'Neill. Pa. Page, Cal. Peddie, N . J . Pollard,l\!o.

NAYS.

DEMOCRATS-lG.

Hardenbergh, N.J. Morgan. Mo. Hards, Ga. Pridemore, Vn. Hart, N .Y. Robhins, N.C. Phelps, Conn. Stephens, Ga.

REPUBLICANs-55.

Conger, Mich. Joyce, Vt. Crapo, Mass. Lathrop, Ill. Danford, Ohio McCook, N.Y. Denison, Vt-. 1\IcGowan,?tlich. Dunnell, Mil:tn. Mitchell, Pa. Dwight, N . Y. Monroe, Ohio Eames, R . I. Norcross, Mass. Harris, Mass. Overton, Pa. Hendee, Vt. Patterson, N. Y. Henderson, Ill. Pugh, N.J. Humphrey, Wis. Rainey, S.C. Hungerford, N.Y. Randolph, T enn. James,N.Y. Reed ,l\:le. Jones, Ohio Rice, Mass.

Rice, Ohio Robertson, La. Roes, N.J. Scales, N . C. Sayler, Ohio Singleton, 1\Iiss. Southard, Ohio Slemons, Ark. Smith, Ga. Sparks, ill. Steele, N. C. Stenger, Pa. Throckmorton,Tex. Townshend, lll. Turner, Ky. Turney, Pa. Vance, N.C. Walker, Va. Whitthorne, Tenn. Wigginton, Cal. Williams, Ala. Willis, Ky. Wilson, "\V. V a. Wright, Pa. Yeates, N.C. Young, La.

Pound, Wis. Robinson, Ind. Ryan,Kan~. Sapp,Iowa Shallenberger, Pa. Townsend, N .Y. Ward. Pa. White, Ind. Williams, Oregon Willits, !ich. Wren, Nev. Van Vorhes, Ohio.

Swann,Md. Waddell, N.C. Warner, Conn. Williams, Del.

Robinson, Mass. Sampson, Iowa Sexton, Ind. Sinnickson, N.J. Smalls, S. C. Srnitb,Pa. Sta.rin,N.Y. Stewart, Minn. Strait.,l\iinn. Thompson, Pa. Tipton, ill. Town end, N.Y. Watson,Pa. Williams, Wis.

Vote in the Senate, l:ebruary 15, 1879, on the bill H. R. No. 2423.

Bailey, Tenn. Barnum, Conn.• Ba;s:ard,Del. Beck, Ky. Coke, Tex. Dennis, Md.

Allison, Iowa Blaine, Maine Booth, Cal. Cameron, Pa. Cbaflee. Col.:::

Butl~, S.C. Davis, W. Vn.

Anthony, R.I. Bruce, Miss. Burnside, R. I. Cameron, Wis. Conkling, N.Y.

YEAS. DlDIOCBATS-22.

Eaton, Conn. Lamar, Miss. Eustis, La. McDonald. Ind. Garland, Ark. McPherson, N.J. Gordon, Ga. Maxey, Tex. Grover, Oregon Morgan, Ala. Hereford, W . Va. Ransom, N . C.

REPUBLJCANs-19, Dorsey, Ark. Paddock, Neb. Jones, Nev. Patterson, S. C. Kirkwood, Iowa Plumb, Kans. Mitchell, Oregon Sargent, Cal. Oglesby, lll. Saunders, Nebr.

NAYS. DlUlOCRAT.S-8,

Hill, Ga. Kernan. N. Y . J<?nes, Fla. McCreery, Ky.

REPUBLICANs-20.

Shields, Mo. Thurman, Ohio Voorhees, Ind. Wallace, Pa.

Sharon, Nev. Spencer, Ala.. Teller, Col. Windom, Minn.

Rnndolph, N.J. 'Vithers, Va.

Conover, Fla. Dawes, Mass. EdmundR, Vt. Ferry, Mich. Hnmlin, M.aine

Hoar, Mass. :Matthews, Ohio Howe. \Vis. M rrimon, N.C. Ingalls, Kans. Morrill, Vt. Kellogg, La. Rollins, N. H.• Mcl\lillan, Minn. • Wadleigh, N. II.•

INDEPENDENT.

Davis, Ill.

Vo!e in the How;e, March 1, 187!J, to pass House bill No. 2:!23 ot:CI' President Hayu'.J ~eto.

Atkins, Tenn. Banning, Ohio Beebe, N . Y. Bell, Ga. Blackburn, Ky. Boone, Ky. Budges,Pa. Cabell, Va. Oaldwell,Ky. Carlisle, Ky. Chalmers, Miss. Clark, 1\Io. Clarke, Ky. Cobb, Ind. Collins, Pa. Cook, Ga. Covert, N .Y. Cox, N.Y. Cravens, Ark. Crittenden, Mo. Culberson, Tex. Davis,N.C.

Bayne,Pa. Brentano, Ill. Butler, Mass. Cole, Mo.

· Davis,Cal. Deering, Iowa

YEAS. DIDIOCBATS-88.

Dibrell, Tenn. House, Tenn. Dickey, 0 hio Jones, Ala. Durham, Ky. Jones,N. H. Eden, Ill. Kenna, W.Va. Eickhoff,N. Y . Kimmell., 1\ld.

- Elam, La. Knott, Ky. Evins, S.C. Ligon, Aln. Ewing, Ohio Luttrell, Oal. Finley,J.J.,Flu.. 1\l.aish,Pa. Finley, Ohio Manning, Miss. Forney, Ala. 1\lartin, W.Va.. Garth, Ala. May ham, N.Y. Gause, Ark. McKenzie, Ky. Giddings, Tex. McMahon, Ohio Glover, Mo. Mills, Tex. Goode, Va. 1\loney,l\Iiss. Gunter, Ark. 1\:luldrow, 1\Iiss. · Hamilton, Ind. Muller, N.Y. Hartzell, Ill. Patterson, Colo. Henkle, Md. Rea, Mo. Henry, Md. Reagan, Tex. Herbert, Ala. Reilly, Pa.

REPUBLICAKS-22.

Errett,Pa. E>ans,Pa. Fort, ill. Fester, Ohio Hale, Me. Harmer,Pa.

Hayes, ill. Hazelton, Wis. Hubbell, Mich. Jorgensen, Va. :Majors, Nebr. Marsh, Ill .

NAYS. DEMOCRATS-15.

Rice, Ohio Robertson, Ln.. Ro ,N.J. Sayler, Ohio Scale ,N.C. Shelley, Ala. Singleton, Miss. Slemons, Ark. Southard, Ohio Sparks, Ill. Steele, N . C. Stenger, Pa. Townshend, Ill. Turner, Ky. Turney,Pa. Walker, Va. Whit thorne, Tenn. Wigginton, Cal. William , Ala. Willis, Ky. Wright,Pa. Yeates, N.C.

Neal, Ohio Page, Cal. Shallenberger, Pa. Williams, Oregon.

Bliss, N. Y. Harris, Ga. ~Iorse, ~lass. Candler, Ga. Harris, Va. Phelps, Conn.

Warner, Conn. Williams, Del. Willis, N. Y. Cutler, N .J. Hewitt, N . Y . Pridemore, Vn.

Ha1·denbergh, N . J. Landers, Conn. Waddell, N. C.

Aldrich, Ill. Bacon, N.Y. Bagley, N.Y. Baker, N.Y. Ballou, R . I. Banks, Mass. Blair, N.H. Boyd, lll. Brewer, :&fich. Briggs, N. H . Browne, Ind. Bundy,N. Y . Burchard, ill. Burdick, Iowa CtLmp,N. Y. Cannon, Til. Caswell, Wis. Clark, Iowa Conger, Mich. Crapo, 1\:lass. Cummings, Iowa

REPUBLICANS-81,

Danford, Ohio Lapham, N. Y . Denison, Vt. Lathrop, Ill. Dunnell, ?!finn. Lindsey, 1\!e. Dwight, N.Y. McCook, N. Y. Eames, R. I. Mitchell, Pa. Evans, Ind. :Monroe, Ohio Frye, Me. Norcross, 1\iass. • Gardner Ohio Oliver, Iowa. Garfield, Ohio Overton, Pa. Harris, 1\lru:s. Patter!Oon, N.Y. Henderson, ill. Peddie, N. J. Humphrey, ' Vis. Phillips, Kans. Hungerford, N . Y . Price, Iowa Hunter, Ind. Pugh, N. J. Ittner, Mo. Rainey, S.C. James, N. Y. Randolph, Tenn. Jones. Ohio Rice, Mass. Keifer, Ohio Robinson, Mass. Kelley, Pa. Robinson, Ind. Ketcham, N.Y. Sampson, Iowa. Killinger, Pa.. Sexton, Ind.

Sinnickson, N.J. Smalls, R. C. Smith, Pa. Starin,N. Y . Stewart., Minn. Stone, Iowa. Stone, 1\lich. Strait, Minn. Thompson, Pa. Townsend. N.Y. Townsend, Ohio Wait, Conn, Ward, Pa. Watson, Pa. White, Ind. White, Pa. Williams, N. Y. Williams, Wis.

Vole in the Senate, March 9, 1882, on the biU (8. No. 71) to reslt'ict Chinese immigra­tion for twenty years.

Bayard, Del. Beck., Ky. Call, Fla. Camden, W.Va.* Cockrell, Mo. Coke, Tex. Fair, Nev. Farley, Cal.

YEAS. DEMOCBATS-30.

Garland, Ark. Jonas, La.. George, Miss. Jones, Fla..* Gorruan Md.. Maxey, Tex.• Grover, Oregon • McPherson, N.J. • Hampton, S.C.* 1\Iorgan, Ala. Harris, Tenn. Pendleton, Ohio* Jackson, T enn . Pugh, Ala. Johnston, Va.• Ransom, N.C.

*Paired.

Slater, Oregon Vance, N.C. Vest., Mo. Voorhees, Ind. Walker, Ark. Williams, Ky. •

1888. ·cONGRESSIONAL REOORD=HOUSE. 7707

Cameron, Wis. Hale, Me.

Aldrich, R.I. Allison, Iowa Anthony, R.L* Blair, N.H. Conger, Mich. Dawes, Mass.

.B.El'Ulll.ICANS-8.

Hill, Colo. Miller, Cal. Jones, Nev. l'lliller, N. y,,

NAYS. DEMOCRATS-!.

Brown, Ga. R.EPU1JLICANS-22,

Edmunds, Vt. Lapham, N.Y. Frye, Me. 1\IcDill. Iowa Harrison, Ind.* Mcl!itlan,l\linn. Hawley, Conn.* Mitchell, Pa.* Hoar, ~lass. Morrill, Vt. Ingalls, Kans. Platt, Conn.*

lNDEPENDENT-1.

Davis, Ill.

Sawyer, Wis. Teller, Colo.

Rollins, N.H.* Sewell, N.J.* Sherman, Ohio* Van Wyck,Nebr.*

Vote in the House, A!arcl~ 23, 18S2, on the bill (S. Ko. 71) to restrict Chinese immigra­tion.

Aiken, S.C. Armfield, N.C. Atkins, Tenn . Belmont, N.Y. Berry,Oal. Blackburn, Ky. Blancharrl, Ln. Blis ,N.Y. Blount, Ga. Bocliner, Mo. Cabell, Va. Caldwell, Ky. Cassidy, NeT. Chalmers, Miss. Chapman, Md.

. Clark, Mo. Clements, Ga. Cobb, Ind. Converse, Ohio Cook, Ga. Covington, Md. Cox, N. C. Cox, N.Y. Cravens, Ark. Culbers~n, Tex.

Brumrn,Pa. Burrows, lllo.

Aldrich, Ill. Bayne, Pa. Belford, Colo. Bingham. Pa. Brewer, ?rlich. Butterworth, Ohio Calkins, Ind. Cllmpbell, Pa. Cannon,llL Caswell, Wis. Cornell. N.Y. Darrall, La. Davi ,Dl. De Motte, Ind. Dezeudorf, Va. Errett, Pa.

Bragg, Wis.

Anderson, Kans. Barr, Pa. Briggs, N. II. Browne, Ind. Buck, (;onn. Camp, N.Y. Candler, .Mass. C-arpenter, Iowa Chace, R. L Crapo, Mass. Cullen, Ill. Dawes, Mass. Deering, Iowa. Dingley, Maino Dunnell, Minn. Dwizht, N.Y.

YEAS. DE:liOCRATS-38.

Curtin,Pa. Davidson, Fla. D avis, Mo. Deuster, \'"is. Dibble, S.C. Dihrell. Tenn. Dowd,N.C. Dugro,N.Y. Ermentrout, Pa. Finley, Fla. Flower, N.Y. Forney, Ala. Garrison, Va. Geddes, Ohio Gibson, La. Gunter, Ark. nammond. Ga. Hardy,N. Y. Barris, N.J. Bat.ch,Mo. Herndon, Ala. Hewitt, N.Y. Hoblitzell,l\Id. Hoge,W.Va.. Holman, Ind.

Bouse, Tenn. Hutchins,N. Y. Jones, Ark. Kenna, \V. Va. King, La. Klotz,Pa. Knott, Ky. Leedom, Ohio. l\Iartin, Del. Matson, Ind. McKenzie, Ky. McLane, Md. 1\Ic:\Iillin, Tenn . 1\Ji\ls,Tex. l\Ioney, Miss. l\Ioulton, Ill. l\Iutchler, Pa.. Phelps, Conn. Phister, Ky. Randall,Pa. Reagan, Tex. Richardson, S.C._ Robertson, La.. Robinson, N.Y. Rosecrans, Cal.

GREENUACKER -8.

Ford, 1\Io. Jones, Tex. Haseltine, Mo. Ladd,Me.

REPunLICANS-61.

Farwell, Ill. McClure, Ohio Fulkerson, Va. 1\IcCook,N.Y.

~~~1h'e~r\q~~ ~f&~~~:.· Ohio Harmer, Pa. Morey, Ollio Hazelton, \Vis. 0' eill, Pa. Beilman, Ind. Pacheco, Cal. Bill, N.J. Page, Cal. Hiscock, N.Y. Paul, Va.. Horr, Mich. Payson, Til. Houk, Tenn. Peele, Ind. Hubbell. Mich. Pound, Wis. Hubbs, N.C. Scranton, Pa. Jorgensen, Va. Shallenberger, Pa.. Lewis, Ill. Sherwin, Dl. ll1arsh,lll. Smith, Ill.

NAYS. DEMOCRATS-4.

Hardenbergh,N.J. Hooker, Miss. REPunLICANS-62.

Farwell. Iowa 1\IcCoid, Iowa Grout, Vt. Norcross. Mass. Hall, N.H. Orth, Ind. H a mmond,N. Y. Parker,N. Y. Harris, Mass. Ranney, Mass. Haskell, Kans. Reed, Maine Jlil,wk, Ill. Rice, Ohio Ifenderson, Ill. Rice, Mass. Hepburn, Iowa Rich, Mich Humphrey, Wis. Richardson, N.Y. Jones,N. J. Ritchie, Ohio Jacobs, N.Y. Robinson, Mass. Joyce, Vt. Russell, Mass. Kasson, Iowa Ryan, Kans. Ketcham, N.Y. Schultz, Ohio Lord, Mich. Skinner, N.Y.

Simonton, Tenn. Singleton. Miss. Sparks, Ill. Speer, Ga. Springer, Til. Stockslager, Ind. Talbot, Id. ThOIDDSOn , Ky. Tillman, S.C. Townshend, Ill. Tucker. Va. Turner, Ga. Turner, Ky. Upson, Tex. Vance, N.C. Warner, Tenn. "\Vellborn, Tex. 'Vhitthorne. Tenn. 'Villiams.Ala. Willis. Ky. Wilson, W.Va. Wise,Pa. Wise,Va.

Murch, Me. Rice, Io.

Smith, N.Y. Smith,Pa. Spaulding, Mich. Strait, 1\:linn. Thomas, Ill. Townsend, Ohio Updegraff, Ohio Valentine, Nebr. Van Horn, Mo. Washburn, Minn. Webber, Mich. Willits,l\Iich. Wood,N.Y.

Morse, Mass.

Spooner, R.I. Stone, Mass. Taylor, Ohio Thompson, Iowa Tyler, Vt. Updegraff, Iowa Urner, Md. ·wadsworth, N.Y. Wait, Conn. Walker, Pa. Ward, Pa. Watson, Pa. White, Ky. Williams, Wis.

Vote in Sena.U, Ap1'il5, 1882, to pass Senate bill No. 71 01Jer.President Arthur's veto.

Rayard,Del. Beck, Ky. Call, Fla. Cockrell, Mo. Coke, Tex. Davis, W.Va. Fair, Nev. Farley, Cal. .

Cameron, Wis. Hill, Colo.

YEAs. DEMOCRATS-31.

Garland,.Ark.* Jones,Fla.* Gorman,l\ld. Lamar, Miss. Grover, Oregon McPherson, N.J. Hampton,S.C. Maxey,Tex. Harris, Tenn. Morgan, Ala.. Jackson, Tenn.* Pendleton, Ohio Johnston, Va. Pugh, Ala. Jonas, La.* Ransom, N .C.*

Jones, Nev. Miller, Cal.

REPUBLICAN -6. Miller, N.Y.

NAYS. DEl\IOCRATS-none.

*Paired.

Saulsbury, Del.* Sla-ter, Oregon Vance, N.C.* Vest, Mo.

W oorhees. Ind. Walker, Ark. Williams, Ky.*

Teller, Colo.

Aldrich, R.I. Allison, Iowa* Anthony.R.L Blair, N.H. Conger, Mich. Dawes, Mass. Edmunds, Vt."

REPlmLICA.Ns-28.

Ferry, 1\Iich. * Logan, Ill.* Frye, Me. 1\lahone, Va.* Harrison, Ind. :McDill, Iowa* Hawley, Conn. 1\Icl\lillan.l\Iinn. Boar,JHass. Mitchell. Pa. Ingalls, Kans. Morrill, VL Kellogg, La. Platt, Conn.

IND.EPE~"'DENT.

Davis, DJ.

Plumb, Kans. Rollins, N.H. Saunders, Nebr. • Sawyer, \Vis. Sewell, N.J. Sherman, Ohio Windom, Minn.

Vote in the IIousc, Apra 17,1882, on the bill (II. R. No. 5804) to ·estrict Chinese immigration for ten years.

Aiken, S.C. Armfield, N.C. Atkins, Tenn. Beacl.t,N. Y . Berry, Cal.

· Bllickburn , Ky. Blanchard, La. Bland, Mo. Blount, Ga.. Buchanan, Ga. Buckner, Mo. Cabell, Va. Caldwell. Ky. Carlisle, Ky. Ca!:ffiidy, JS"ev. Chalmers, Miss. Chapman, Md. Clardy, 1\Io. Clark, 1\Io. Clements, G:t. Cobb, Ind. Colerick, Ind. Converse, Ohio Cook, Ga.. Covington, 1\Id. Cox, N.Y.

Burrows, Mo. Ford.l\Io.

Aldrich, Ill. Anderson, Kans. Hayne,Pa. Belford, Colo. Bingham, Pa. Burrows,l\Iich. Butterworth, Ohio Calkins, Ind. Ca!Dp,N.Y. Campbell, Pa. Cannon, Ill. Caswell, Wis. Chase, R.I. Cullen, IlL. Darrall, La. Davis, Ill. De l\Iotte, Ind. Dezendorf. Va. Dunnt-ll. Minn. Errett,Pa. Farwell, Ill. Fisher,Pa. Fulkerson, Va.

Bragg, Wis.

YEAS. DEliOCTIA TS-103.

Cravens, Ark. IIodge, W.Va. Culberson, Tex. Holman, Ind. Curtin, Pa. Bou e, Tenn. Davidson, Fla.l Hutchins, N.Y. Davis, l\Io. Jones, Ark. Deuster, Wis. Kenna, W.Va. Dibble, S.C. Klotz, Pa. Dibrell. Tenn. Knott, Ky. Dowd, N.C. Latham, N.C. Ermentrout, Pa. Leedom, Ohio Evins, S, C. Le Fevre, Ohio Finley, Fla. Manning, 1\Iiss. Flowe1·,N. Y. ruatson, Ind. Forney, Ala. McKenzie, Ky. 'Geddes, Ohio l\IcLane. Md. Gibson, La. 1\Ioney, 1\Iiss. Gunter, Ark. l\Iorrison, Dl. Hammond. Ga. 1\Iosgrove, Pa. llardy, N.Y. Moulton, Ill. Harris, N.J. Muldrow, Miss. Hatch, l\Io. · Nolan, N.Y. Herbert, Ala.. Oates, Ala. Herndon, Ala. Phelps, Conn . Hewitt, Ala. Randall, Pn. Hewitt, N .Y. Reagan, Tex. Boblitzell, Md. Robertson, La.

GREENBACKEI!S-7.

Haseltine, Mo. Ladd,J\Ie. Jones, Tex. Murch,l\Ic.

REPUBLICA.Ns-91.

George, Oregon Guenther, Wis. Harmer,Pa. Haskell. Kans. Bawk.Dl. Hazleton, Wis. Heilman, Ind. Hill, N.J. Hiscock, N.Y. Borr.l\Iich. IIouk,Tenn. Hubbs,N. C. Jacobs,N. Y. Jadwin, Pa. Jones, N.J. Jorgensen, Vn. Kasson, Iowa. Kelley,Pa. Ketcham, N.Y. Lacy, Mich. Lewis, Ill. Lord, Mich. Marsh, Til.

l\Iason, N.Y. 1\lcClure, Ohio McCook, N.Y. M cKinley, Ohio Miles. Conn. Miller, Pa. l\lorey, Ohio Neal, Ohio O'Neill, Pa. Pacheco. Cal. Page, Cal. Paul,Va. Pavson, Ill. Peele, Ind. Peirce, Ind. Pound, Wis. Prescott, N.Y. R"\ed,l\Ie. Rich, Mich. Robeson, N.J. Robinson, Mass. Robinson, Ohio Russell, 1\rass.

NAYS.

DEMOCRATS-3.

llardenbergh, N.J. Morse, Mass. REPunLICA.NS-34.

Bowman, Mass. Farwell, Iowa · Orth, Ind. Briggs, N.H. Grout, Vt. Parker, N.Y. Buck, Conn. Hall. N.H. . Ranney,l\Iass. Carpenter, Jowa Ra.r;nmond, N.Y. Ray, N.H. Crapo, Mass. Humphrey, Wis. Rice, lass. Dawes, Mass. Joyce, Vt. Rice, Ohio Deering, Iowa 1\IcCoid, Iowa. Ritchie, Ohio Dingley, Me. Moore, Tenn. Shultz, Ohio Dwight, N.Y. Norcross, Mass. · Skinner, N.Y.

Robinson, N.Y. Rosecrans, Cal. Ross, N.J. Shackelford, Ala. Shelly, Ala. Simonton, Tenn. Singleton, .Miss. Sparks, Ill. Speer, Ga. Spl'inger, Til. Talbott, 1\Id. Tillman, S. C. Townsh~nd, Ill. Turner, Ga. ' 'l'urner, Ky. Upson, Tex. Vance, N.C. \Varner, Tenn. \Vellborn, T ex. Wheeler, Ala. Wbitthorne, Tenn. Williams, Ala. Willis, Ky. \Vise, Pa.

· Wise, Va.

llice,l\Io.

Ryan, Kans. Scranton, Pa.. Shallenberger, Pa. ' Sherwin, Til. Smith, Ill. Smith,N. Y. Smith,Pa. Spaulding, 1\Iich. Spooner, R.I. Steele, Ind. Strait, Minn. Townsend, Ohio Tyler, Vt. Updegraff, Ohio Uruer,Md. Valentine, Nebr. Van Horn,l\1o. \Vait, Conn . \Vebber, Mich. West,N. Y. White, Ky. Willits, l\Iich.

Stone, l\Iass. Thompson, Iowa Van A ernam, N.Y. Van Voorhis, N.Y. Wadsworth,N. Y. Ward,Pa. Williams, \Yis.

The following sections were in the abov-e bill (H. R. No. 5804) when sent t-o a Republican Senate by a Democratic House of Representatives:

•· SEc. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall ad. mit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby re­pealed.

"SEc. 15. That the words' Chinese laborers,' wherever used in this act shall be construed to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers ana Chinese empioyed in mining."

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations recommended that the above sections be stricken from the bill.

On April 25, 1882, when section 14 of the bill was reached, Senator Farley of California, said: '

"I hope that amendment [to strike out] will not be adopted. For many rea­sons I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate just now in the discussion of this amendment. At the time that it was put into the first bill I know that some distinguished Senators took the ground that there was no necessity for this provision because the statute already provided for it. But, notwithstanding that statute. the courts have been natumlizing Chinamen; and I shall insist on the rejection of the amendment at this time." lo~~~ vote on the amendment to strike out section 14 was then taken, as fol-

YEAS. DEMOCRATS-I.

Brown, Ga.*

*Paired.

-·

,

7708

Aldrich, R.I. · Allison, !own. Anthony, R.I. Blair, N.H. Conger, Mich. Dawes, l\Iass. Edmunds, Vt. •

Bayard, Del. Beck, Ky. Butler, S.C. Call, Fla. Cockrell, Mo.* Coke, Tex. Davis, W.Va. Fair, Nev.

01\meron, Wis. Chilcott, Colo.

' .

CONGRESSIONAL. R.ECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 18,

REPUBLICANS-28. Frye, Me. Lapham, N. Y. Hale, Me. McDill , Iowa.. Harrison, Ind. 1\Icl\lillan~Iinn. Hawley, Conn. Miller, N. x. Hoar, Mass. Morrill, Vt. Ingalls, Kans. Platt, Conn. Kellogg, La. Plumb, Kans.

INDEPENDENT-I. Davis, Ill.

NAYS. DEMOCRATS-31.

Farley, Cal. Jackson, Tenn.-Garlnnd. Ark.* Johnston, Va. George, Miss. Jonas, La. Gorman, Md. Jones, Fla. Groome, Md. McPherson, N.J. Grover, Oregon Maxey, Tex. Hampton, S. C. Morgan, Ala. Harris, '.fenn. * Pendleton, Ohio

REPUBLICANS--5. Hill, Colo. Jones, Nev.

Tiollins K. H. Haunders, r~ebr, Snw·yer, 'Vis. Sewell, N.J.* Sherman, Ohio.* VanWyck, Nebr. 'Vindom, Minn.

Pugh, Ala. Slater, Oregon Vance, N.C.* VesL,l'tio. Voorhees, Ind. Walker, Ark. Williams, Ky.

. Miller, Cal.

Vole in the Senate, .April 28, I882, on the bat (H. R. No. 5804) to restrict Ohinese irn-o migration for ten years.

Bayard, Del. • Beck, Ky. Butler, S.C. Call, Fla.. Cockrell, 1\Io. * Coke, Tex. Davis, W. Va.t: Fair, Nev.

Cameron, Wis. Chilcott, Colo. Hale, Me.

YEAS. DEMOCRATs-32.

Farley, Cal. .Johnston, Va. Garlanc'l., Ark. Jonas, La. George,l\Iiss. .Jones, Fla. • Gorman,l\Id. • Lamar, Miss. • Grove•·, Oregon l'r!axey, Tex. Hampton, S.C. McPherson, N. J.• Harris, Tenn. Jltiorgan, AJa. .Jackson, Tenn.• Pendleton, Ohio

REPUBLICANS-9. Hill, Colo. Miller, Cal. Jones, Nev. 1\Iiller,N. Y.

INDEPENDENT, Davis, Til.

NAYS.

DEXOCRATS-1 •. Brown, Ga.*

Pugh, Ala. Ransom. N.C. • Saulsbury, Del.• Slater, Oregon Vance, N.C. Vest, Mo. Walker, Ark. Williams, Ky.

Saunders, Nebr. Van Wyok- Nebr.

So the amendment to strike out section I4o ws.s rejected. REPUBLICANS-24. The next amendment reported by the Senate Committee on Foreign Rela­

tions was to trike out section I5. Aldrich, R.. I.* Allison, Iowa Anthony, R.I.* Blair, N.H. Conge r, Mich. Dawes, Mass.

Edmunds, Vt. Ingalls, Kans. Ferry,l\Iich .. * Kellogg, Lo. ...

:Morrill, Vt. Platt, Conn. Rollins, N.H.* Sewell, N.J.* £3herman, Ohio Windom, Minn.*

On this amendment Senator Grover, of Oregon, said: _ "I hope this amendment will not be agreed to. The Chinese embassy declare

that they do not desire that artisans shall be excluded. This is proposed to ex­clude the artisans. If they are not excluded by the terms of this biU it will be found that nearly every Chinaman desiring to come to the United States will claim to be an artisan, and they will all be admitted; and thus tue purposes of the late treaty will be avoided and the purposes of the bill will be avoided, un­less this amendment is disagreed to."

Frye, 1\Ie. Lapham, N.Y. Harrison, Ind. Logan, IlL* Hawley,Conn. McDill,Iowa.* Hoar, 1\Iass. McMillan, Minn.

*Paired.

RECAPITULATION.

The vote on the amendment to strike out section 15 was then taken, as fol­lows:

.Final 11otes in Senate and House on bill-s to restrict Chinese immig1·ation.

Aldrich,'R. I. Allison, Iowa.

tbony,_!t.I. Blair, N.H. Cameron, Pa. Chilcott, Colo. Conger, Mich. Dawes,l\Iass.

Bayard, Del. Beck, Ky.· Butler, S.C. Call, Fla. Cockrell, Mo.* Coke, Tex. Davis, W.Va. Fair, Nev.

YEAS. DEMOCRATS-I. Brown, Ga.•

REPUBLICANS-31. Frye, Ie. Lapham, N.Y. Hale, Me. Logan, Ill.* Harrison. Ind. McDill, Iowa Hawley, Conn. McMillan, l\Iinn. Hill, Colo. Miller, N.Y. Hoar, Mass. 1\Iorrill, Vt. Ingalls, Kans. Platt, Conn. Kellogg, Ls. l'lumb, Kans.

INDEPENDENT-I. Davis, Ill.

NAYS. DEMOCRATS-29.

Farley, CaL Jonas, La. George,l\Iiss. McPherson, N. J. Gorman,l\Id. :Maxcy, Tex. Grover, Oregon Jlt'Iorgan, Ala. Hampton, S.C. Pendleton, Ohio Harris, Tenn." Pugh, Ala. .Jackson, Tenn. Ransom, N.C.* Johnston, Va. Slater, Oregon

Rollins, N. TI. Saunders, Nebr. Sawyer, Wis, Sewell, N.J.* Sherman, Ohio* VanWyck, Nebr. Windom, Minn.

Vance, N.C . .;: Vest,l\Io. Voorhees, Ind. Walker, Ark. Williams, Ky.

Democrats. Republicans.

Date. Yeas. Na.ys. Yens. Nays.

---------Senate.

February I5,I879 ................. .............................. . 22 8 I9 20 l't!arch 9, 1882 ..................................................... .. Apri15, I8 2t ...................................................... .

30 I 8 22 3I 0 6 28

April 28,I882 ...................................................... . 32 1 "9 24 -------------Total ....................................................... . 115 IO 42 94

Hottse of Representatives.

January 28.1879 ........................... ....................... I04 16 51 56 ?!larch 1, 1879t ..................................... - ...... :........ 88 15 22 8I Jlt'fa.rch 23,1 2...................................................... 98 4 61 62 Aprill7, I882...... ......................... ... ......... ...... ...... I03 3 91 34

393i--as225\~ Total votes in Senate and House.............. 508 1 4.81 267 1 <NT

REPUBLICANs-3. tVote to pass Senate bill No. 71 over President Arthur's veto. Cameron, Wis. .Jones, Nev. :Miller, Cal. t Vote to pass House bill No. 2423 over President Hayes's veto.

So the amendment was agreed to; ana section I5 was st-ricken from the bill. , . This action was t:\ken while the Sena~e was in Committee of the Whole. j .Afr. HITT obtamed the floor. Seuntor MoRGAN, of AJ~~:barua, then smd: . . . ; 1\fr. DINGLEY. I ask the gentleman to yield to me for a moment .. r give n(•tice that I w1ll re erve a vote on the questiOn concermng skilled · k th tl f: Ind' [M B J ·

and unskilled laborers when the bill comes up in the Senate." to as e gen eman. rom Iana r. YNUM a questiOn. * * * * * "' * I Mr. HITT. Certamly.

The PRE mrNG OFFI.CE!R- Will the Senate concu.r in the last ~mendment, which Mr. DING LEY. \Vh ile the gentleman from Indiana [1\fr. BYNUM J has bee~ reserved* stnkmg o.ut the fifte;nth secti~n of the bl!l? * I was speaking I attempted to ask him a question, but he declined to

After a number of speeches by D~mocratic Sen!ltors against '?tr.iking out sec- ,. yield to me for that purpose, ~ot having time then to answer it. I tion 15, and by a number of Republican Senators m favor of stnk1ng 1t out, the wish now to repeat that questiOn. vote in the Senate, on April 28, 1882• resulted as follows: I noticed the gentleman from Indiana, in describing the want of for-

Aldrich, R.I.* Alli on, Iowa Anthony. R.I.* Blair, N.H.

· Conger, Mich. Dawes, Mass. Edmunds, Vt. Ferry, Mich.*

Bayard, Del.* Beck, Kv. Buller, S.C. Call, Fla. Camden, W.Va.* Cockrell, Mo.* Coke, Tex. Davis, ,V. Va..* Fair, Nev.

YEAS. wardness on the part of the Republican party in taking action against DEMOCRATS-I. Chinese immigration, stopped at 1879. I now wish to ask the gentle-Brown, Ga.* mau whether from 1879 to 1881, when the Democratic party bad con-

REPUBLICANS-31. trol of the Senate and House, this much-desired legislation was carried

~~-~i:-::: Ind. ~~N1', ~~·,~a* :;~~d:~~·ffe·b:. OUt? . Hawley, Conn. McMillan, Minn. Sawyer, Wis.* 1\Ir. BYNUM. I have not investigated the records [laughter and Hill, Colo. ?.!iller, N.Y. Sshwet~mlla, nN,.OJh ..

1•0· applause on the Republican side], but I wish to say to the gentleman

Hoar, Mass. Morrill, Vt. f M · Ingalls, Kans. Mitchell, Pa.. * Van 'Vyck, Nebr. rom ame--Kellogg, La.* Platt, Conn. - Windom, .Minn.* Mr. DINGLEY. I observe--Lapham, N.Y. Plumb, Kans."' Mr. BYNUM. Just wait; let m~ answer you, as you have asked me

INDEPENDENT-I. the question aud yielded me the floor for that purpose. The question Davis, lll. was not brought up by any of the Representatives of the Pacific Slope

NAYS. during that time nor any other member, for the reason, I presume, that DEMOCRATs-34• President Hayes was hostile to the legislation.

~~i!~d~~~k. f~~:::~f~-* ~:l:~uJ~~~~·· Mr. DINGLEY. Itwas. The gentleman fromCalifornia,Mr. Page, George; Mis . Lamar, Miss.• Vance, N. C. introduced a bill into this House, but that bill was not enacted into Gorman, Md.* Maxey, T ex. Vest., 1\Io.* law by the Ilouse and Senate at that time, although the Democrats Grover, Oregon McPherson, N.J.* Voorhees, Ind.• had control of both Houses. No Democrat asked for its consideration. Hampton, S.C. Morgan, Ala. . ·walker, Ark. Harris, Tenn. Pendleton, Ohto Williams, Ky. [Laughter and applause on the Republican side.] Jackson, Tenn.• Pugh, Ala. Mr. BYNUM. It was because the vetoes of the Republican Presi-Johnston, Va. Ransom, N.C.* dent had cut off all such legislation. [Applause on the Democratic

REPUBLICA.NS-4. Cameron, Wis. Chilcott, Colo. Jones, Nev. Miller, Cal. side.]

so the a.mendment to strike out section 15 was rejected. Mr. DINGLEY. No, the bill was vetoed in 1882. I am speaking of

*Paired. the years 1879 to 1881, when the Democrats had control of the tw.o

'

1886. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 7709 Houses, in both the Senate and House, and when no Democrat nuder­took to legislate on the subject.

Ur. BYNUM. President Hayes vetoed the first bill in March, 1879; be continued to occupy the executive chair till · March 4, 1881. The Congress next after Garfield's inauguration did not assemble till De­cember, 18 1, and the bill suspending immigration for twenty ye:trs was passed in Uarch, 1882. If the gentleman will look at the votes in the two Houses on those bills be will find that the majority of the Republicans voted !lgainst the passage of those bills, w bile the majority of the Democrats voted in favor of them. I wish to call the gentle­mans attention to that fact. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. WEBER. I should like to ask a question if the gentleman from Illinois will permit me. It is in connection with the statement which is made by the gentleman from Maine.

fr. IIITT. Certainly. Mr. WEBER. I understood the gentleman from Maine to say that

during the years 1879 and 1881 both Houses of C~mgress were in the bands of the Democratic pa1·ty.

Mr. DINGLEY. Yes, both Houses; the Senate by a majority of8 or 9, and the House by a large majority.

M:r. WEBER. I do not know whether that is so or not, but I wish to ask whether the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BYNUl\I] dia not get his information from the Speaker of this House, who in the October number of the Forum made the statement that not since the close of the war did the Democratic party have control_ of both Houses of Con­gress at the same time.

And if the gentleman is right, it will be in order to have that correc­tion made, so that the country may be undeceived.

.Mr. DINGLEY. In the Forty-sixth Congress the-Democrats had the control both of the Senate and the House.

Mr. BYNUU. The majority in the Senate in favor of the Democrats wa obtained by the vote of Senator Davis. That is my recollection. Our majority wa'3 never as great as stated by the gentleman from Maine. No action was taken, I presume, because of the opposition of Presiden t Hayes. Even the members from the Paeific Slope seemed not to have urged legislation during this period.

1\fr. DINGLEY. The gentleman is mistaken. Mr. BYNUM. It was a very slight majority. Judge Davis was

elected as President of the Senate and voted with the Democrats upon most questions, but upon the Chinese question he voted mostly with the Repn blic:ms.

Mr. DINGLEY. Senator Davis held the balance of power in the Senate in the Forty-seventh COngress, but in the Forty-sixth Congress, from 1879 to 18 1, the Democrats had a maj ority of 7 in the Seriate, and yet there was no attempt to carry out this legislation.

l\Ir. CANNON. I want to ask the gentleman a question in that line. The treaty negotiated while Mr. Evarts was Secretary of State was concluded on the 17th of November, 1880, when this same Democratic Congress was in existence, and remained in existence until the 4th of March, 1881. Now, then, as stated by the gentleman from California [Mr. MORROW], there was no legislation to enforce the provisions of the treaty until' 18 2, and the Chinese came and went practically at will, while within thirty days after that treaty was concluded a Democratic Congress met and remained in session until the subsequent 4th of March and never even attempted to originate any legislation upon that subject. I ask the gentleman, why did he not refer to that omission?

Mr. HITT. I yield tothe gent.leman from California [Mr. FELTON]; but if the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BYNmi] desires to respond, I will yield to liiru. ·

l\Ir. BYNUU. I do not think there is anything to respond to. I am not here to respond to what was not done. I am charging what was done by the Republican party, and the mere fact that no action was taken during a certain period is no answer to the charge of the con­tinued opposition of the Republican party to this legislat ion.

Mr. KERR. To charge upon the Uepublican party what it did not d~ .

[M:r. FELTON withholds his remarks for revision. See APPENDIX.] :Mr. HITT. I yield ten minnt~ to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.

OwE~]. · [ Mr. OWEN withholds his remarks for revision. See APPENDIX.] l\lr. CANNON. I ask the gentleman from illinois [Mr. HITT] to

yield to me. Mr. IDTT. I will yield to the gentleman. Mr. CANNON. If the gentleman will yield to me I will move that

the House do now adjourn. J\lr. McCREARY rose. Mr. CANNON. I do not want to take the motion out of the mouth

of the gentleman from Kentucky who bas the bill in charge. Mr. McCREARY. Do I understand that the gentleman yields me

the floor? Mr. CANNON. I yield the floor for you to make that motion. Mr. McCREARY. I supposed that we might make some arrange­

ment this evening about closing the debate. This bill was brought in here.from the Senate. It was stated that it was very important that there 'Should be immediate action upon it, and an effort was made to have a vote upou it without referring it to the Committee on Foreign

Affairs. The Committee on Foreign .A.i'fairs reported the bill with an amendment. and I desire that the bill shall be voted upon. It is im­portant that it should be disposed of at an early 'day, and we shonld vote upon this so that the bill and amendment could go back to the Senate. Now I suggest to gentlemen on the other side t hat we agree to •n. time when we shall "take a vote upon the measure.

Mr. HITT. There are gentlemen not now present, but who have left the House, and who desire to speak upon this bill, and I would not want to cut them off. ·

Mr. McCREARY. I would propose that debate be limited to two hours-on·e hour on each side.

Mr. MORROW. That is not fair . .Mr. HOPKINS, of Illinois. I desire to say a word in answer to the

gentleman who bas charge of this bill. Mr. McCREARY. I did not yield the floor; but I will yield in order

that the gentleman may make a statement. Mr. HOPKINS, oflllinois. I think the time should not be fixed lim­

iting debate on this measure at the present time. .At 3 o'clock to-day we were prepared to vote upon this question and get rid of this bill, but for political purpose.q the gentleman permitted gentlemen on his side of the House who were not members of the Committee on Foreign Af­fairs to make political speeches.

Now, it seems that until gentlemen on our side shall have time to look around and see who shall speak, the debate should not be closed. [Laughter on the Democratic side.]

Mr. McCREARY. Does the gentleman concede that they are fn trouble over there? [Renewed laughter on the Democratic side.]

Mr. DOUGHERTY. I believe I can make a suggestion-­.Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I demand the regular order. Mr. McCREARY. I then give notice that after debate has proceeded­

for two hours longer on this bill I shall move the previous question. Mr. DOUGHEH,TY. ThegentlemanfromKentucky has yielded the

floor for me to make a suggestion. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will st.ate the time that has

been consumed in the debate and what is remaining. The gentleman from California [Mr. MORROW] has five minutes of his hour remaining. The gentleman from Illinois rMr. HITT], from the Committee on For­eign Aftairs, has fifteen minutes of his hour remaining; and as between one side and the other, the Republican side has exhausted one hundred minutes and the Democratic side one hundred and fifty minutes.

Mr. McCREARY. I desire to raise this point of order here: I was in charge of this bill and I was entitled to the floor. The gentleman from illinois [Mr. Hrrr] yielded to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. CA~NON] for debate, and he then moved the adjournment of the House. I bold, sir, that under the rules of the House I am entitled to the .floor.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois was en­titled to the floor and yielded it.

Mr. McCREARY. But did he have the right to make the motion to adjourn?

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hrrr] yielded the floor to me, and I yielded it to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. U cCREARY] for him to make that motion.

:Mr. DOUGHERTY. Will the gentleman yield to me--Mr. McCREARY. I take the floor in my own right and move to

adjourn. .l'llr. CANNON. I only rose for the purpose of making the motion

to adjourn, and I make that motion now. The SPEAKER pm te-mpore.. Pending that motion the Chair will

la,y before the House the following personal request: The Clerk read as follows:

1\Ir. CANDLER asks leave of absence on urgent busines3.

There was no objection, and leave was granted as requested. Mr. DOUGHERTY. I ask unanimous consent to make a sugges­

tion. My suggestion is that there seems to be no difficulty about the passage of this bill. Both sides of this House seem to have agreed that the b ill is a good one and ought to pass, but both of them seem to be anxious to appear as the most earnest friend of the workingman. ·They are both in favor of passing this bill, and why not take it up and pass it now? • '

Several ME!\1BE:RS. Regular order. The question was taken on the motion to adjourn; and there were-

ayes 50, noes 57. Mr. B.A. YNE. I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered. Mr. BLAND (pending the report of the tellers). I move that when

the Honse adjourns to-day, it adjourn to meet on Tuesday next. M:r. HENDERSON, of Iowa. That is a motion that I would like

to occt;~py one or two minutes upon. [Laughter. J Before the completion of the count by tellers, the hour of 5 o'clock

. having arrived, the Honse under its previous order adjourned.

PRIVATE BILLS INTRODtJCED .AND REFERRED

Under the rule private bills of the following titles were .introduced and referred as indicated below:

7710 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA'fE. AUG US 20,

r By Mr. FITCH: A bill (H. R. 1120.4) for the relief of John .Ziegeler­to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. SOWDEN: A bill (H. R. 11205) granting a pension to Sol­omon R. Rnch-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. ,

By M.r. A. C. THOMPSON: A bill (H. R. 11206) for the relief of Madison Wall-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

PETITIONS, ETC.

· The following peti t ions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk, under tho rule, and referred as follows:

By Mr. BACON: Petition of William E. Tuttle, Jacob (J. Polhnus, of Hockland County, New York, for the passage of the bill for there­lief of Jessie I sherham-to t he Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By M.r. BARNES: Papers iu the case of Edward Gallaher, for re­lief-to the Committee on War Claims.

By 1\Ir. BELDEN: Petition of surviving soldiers and sailors of Cort­land County, New York, asking passage of per diem pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. McCOMAS: Petition of Hiram B. Snirely and Albert G. Lo­vell, executors of George Snirely, deceased, of Wa hington County, Maryland, and of Joshua .A.halt, of Frederick County, Maryland-to the eommittee on War Claims.

Also, petition of 34 citizens of the Sixth Congressional district; :hfary­land, asking that the liquor-saloon nuisance be banished from the city of Washington-to the Select Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic.

By l\fr. NEA.L: Petition of administrator of Thomas 1\IcCallie, of Hamilton County, Tennessee-to the Committee on War Claims.

l3y Mr. ROGERS: Petition of administrator of Henry N. McCray, de­ceased, lato of Saline County, Arkansas-to the Committee on War Claims.

By l\1r. SOWDEN: Petition of Solomon R. Ruch, of the Tenth Con­gressjonal district of Pennsylvania, for pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

SENATE. lt!OND.A.Y, .A.'U{}USt 20, 1888.

The Senate met at 11 o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D.

N A:rtfiNG A PRESIDING OFFICER.

, PETITIONS AND 1\IE::U:ORIALS.

Mr. PLUMB presented a petition of a large number of citizens of Saline County, Kansas, praying for certain amendments to the inter­tate-commerce law; which was referred to the Committee on Interstate

Commerce. He also presented a petition of citizens of Las Vegas, N. ).\fex., pray­

ing that provision be made at the present ~;ession of Congress for the payment of Indian depredation claims :filed in the Indian Bureau of the Interior Department by the pioneers and early settlers on the frontier; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

1\Ir. REAGAN presented a petition of 19 citizens of Eastland C.onn'ty, Te,;as, praying that p rovision be made for the paymentof Indian dep­redation claims; which was referred to the Committee on Indian M­fairs.

REPORTS OF COlfMITTEES.

Mr. PLUMB, from the Committee on Public L:mds, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 9423) to restore to the public domain and to regulate the sale and d isposition of certain lands east of the Mississippi River, in the tate of Missi sippi, reported it with an amendment.

Ur. PLUMB. I am also directed by the Committee on Public Lands to report adversely bill (S. 3362) to restore to the public domain and to regulate the sale and disposition of certain lands east of the Missis­sippi River, in the State of Mississippi, it being on the same subject and in the same terms as the H ouse bill j qst xeported favorably. I move that the bill be indefinitely postponed.

The motion was agreed to. l\fr. TURPIE, from the Committee on Pen ions, to whom were re- ,

ferred the following bills, reported them severally without amend­ment, and submitted reports thereon:

A bill (H. R. 10525) to increase the pension of Edward Jardine; .A. bill (H. R. 2908) to increase the pension of W. B. Stokes; A bill (H. R. 5446) granting a pension to William H. Dowdall; A bill (H. R. 9253) granting an increase of pension to Richard Ho­

gan; aud A bill (H. R. 2120) granting a pension to Elizabeth Evans. Mr. SAWYER, from the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads,

to whom were referred the following bills, reported them each without amendment, and submitted reports thereon:

A bill (S. 2341) for the relief of Thomas Chambers, of Mackinac Island, Michigan; and .

A bill (S. 3442) for the relief of E. R. Shipley. GUST .A. VUS W. S.:'.IITII.

Mr. HOAR called the Senate to order and said: The Secretary will ·. ~1r. WILSON, of Iowa. ~y direction of the Com~ttee on the Jn-read a communication from the President pro tempore of the Senate. j diCiary I report favorably,_ "!V1tho~t a~e~dment, the bill (H. R_. 11062)

The CmEF CLERK (Mr. c. w. JoHNSON) read as follows: for the re~oval of the po~tica.l d1 abilities of G~tavns w .. SIDlth; and VICE-PRESIDENT's CHAMBER, Washington, August 20, lSSS. I I ask that ~t may be considered at the pre:>ent trme_. ~

I name the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. HoAR, to perform the duties of By unammous .consent, t?e Se~ate, as In Committee OJ. the Whole, the Chair t<>day. proceeded to consider the bill.

JOHN _J. INGALLS, The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to . . !"resident pro tempore. a th]rd reading, read the third time, and passed (two- thirds of the Sen-

Thereupon Mr. HoAR took the chaii as Presiding Officer for to-day. ators present voting in the affirmative). THE JOURNAL.

The J onrnal of the proceedings of Friday last was read and approved. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HoAR) announced the signature by the President pro tempore of the following enrolled bills, which had previously been signed by the Speaker of the Honse of Representa­tives:

A bill (H. R. 2190) granting a pension to Jane Smallridge; A bill (H. R. 5155) granting a pension to JohnS. Bryant; A bill (H. R. 5156) for the relief of Andrew R. G. Smith; A bill (H. R. 5863) authorizing the Richmond and Danville Railroad

Company to lay tracks, and so forth, in the District of Columbia; A bill (H. R. 9263) granting a pension to Abraham J. Buckles; A bill (H. R. 9363) granting a pension to Edwin .T. Godfrey; .A b ill (H. R. 9830) for the relief of Lachlan H. :Mcintosh; and A bill (S. 94) for the relief of Perez Dickinson, surviving partner of

the late firm of Cowan & .Dickinson. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate a communication from t he Attorney-General, transmitting, in answer to a resolution of August 13, 1888, correspondence and communications passing between the Depart ment of J nstice and any officer thereof and any officer under the Government of the United States in the State of New York since the 1st of J anuary, 1887, on the subj ect of registration, elections, or any matter connected therewith, or with the conduct, duties, powers, or compensation of any such officer in respect of registration or elec­tion matters ; which , with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and ordered to be print~.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary of War, inclosing a report from the Quartermaster-General concerning the amount due to the State of South Carolina for the rent of the Citadel Academy, etc.; which, on motion of M:r. HAMPTOY, was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. PLUMB introduced a bill (S. 3461) granting a pension to Har­rison Landsdown; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

He also introduced a bill (S. 3462) granting a pension to John Wat­son; which was read twice by its title, and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on ·P ensions.

blr. SAWYER introduced a bill (S. 3463 ) granting a pension to Pat­rick H. McNamee; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. BLAIR (by request) introduced a bill (S. 3464) requiring the removal, by the commissioners of the District of Columbia , of brewer ies for the manufacture of beer or malt liquors beyond Boundary s treet, in the District of Cqlumbia ; which was read t wice hy i ts title, and referred to t he Committee on the District of Columbia .

Mr. CALL introduced a bill (S. 3465) to re~ulate tonnage and other charges on foreign vessels in the ports of the United Stat es ; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

.AMENDMENT TO THE F ORTIFIC.A.TIOY DILL. Mr. TELLER submitted an amendment intended to be p roposed by

him to the fortification appropriation bill; wh ich was refened to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed .

FREEDMAN 1S S.A.VL.~GS .AND TRUST CO:\IPA~·Y.

The PRESIDL.~G OFFICER. If t here be no concurrent and other resolutions, the Chair lays before the Senate a resolution coming over from Friday last; which will be read.

The Chief Clerk read the resolu tion submitted by U r. ED:UUNDS i August 15, 1888, as follows: !

.Ruolved, That the Committee on Finance be, and it hereby is, in tructed to I inquire into the matter of deposits in the late Freedman's Savings and Tru3t I Company of Washington, a n d report how many white depo itor of sai tl com­pany there are who were in no way connected with the alleged mi manage- , ment and failure of said company and the amount of deposits due to tllem re- I spectively.