« PreviousContinue »
On motion of Mr. Miller, of California, the provision directing the removal of any Chinese unlawfully found in a Customs Collection district by the Collector, was amended to direct that he shall be removed to the place from whence he came.
On motion of Mr. Brown an amendment was adopted providing that the mark of a Chinese immigrant, duly attested by a witness, may be taken as his signature upon the certificate of resignation or registration issued to him.
other human being on the globe, this tra- | own expense and of his own will, shall not ditional and fundamental principle was be affected by this bill." Lost-yeas 19, entirely ignored. Such a theory as applied nays 24. to Government was contrary to all human experience, to all discussion, and to every step of the founders of our Government. He said that Mr. Sumner, the predecessor of Mr. Hoar, was the author of the law on the coolie traffic, which imposes fines and penalties more severe than those in this bill upon any master of an American vessel carrying a Chinaman who is a servant. The present bill followed that legislation. Mr. Edmunds added that he would vote against the bill if the twenty-year clause was retained, but would maintain the soundness of principle he had enunciated. Mr. Hoar argued in reply that the right of expatriation carried with it the right to a home for the citizen in the country to which he comes, and that the bill violated not only this but the principles of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments which made citizenship the birthright of every one born on our soil, and prohibited an abridgement of the suffrage because of race, color, etc.
Mr. Ingalls moved an amendment postponing the time at which the act shall take effect until sixty days after information of its passage has been communicated to China.
After remarks by Messrs. Dawes, Teller and Bayard, at the suggestion of Mr. Brown Mr. Ingalls modified his amendment by providing that the act shall not go into effect until ninety days after its passage, and the amendment was adopted.
On motion of Mr. Bayard, amendments were adopted making the second section read as follows: "That any master of any vessel of whatever nationality, who shall knowingly on such vessel bring within the jurisdiction of the United States and permit to be landed any Chinese laborer, "&c. Mr. Hoar moved to amend by adding the following: "Provided, that this bill shall not apply to any skilled laborer who shall establish that he comes to this country without any contract beyond which his labor is the property of any person besides himself. "
Mr. Farley suggested that all the Chinese would claim to be skilled laborors.
Mr. Hoar replied that it would test whether the bill struck at coolies or at skilled labor.
The amendment was rejected-Yeas, 17; navs, 27.
Mr. Call moved to strike out the section which forfeits the vessel for the offense of the master. Lost.
Mr. Hoar moved to amend by inserting: "Provided that any laborer who shall receive a certificate from the U. S. Consul at the port where he shall embark that he is an artisan coming to this country at his
The question then recurred on the amendment offered by Mr. Farley that hereafter no State Court or United States Court shall admit Chinese to citizenship. Mr. Hawley, of Conn., on the following day spoke against what he denounced as " a bill of iniquities."
On the 9th of March what proved a long and interesting debate was closed, the leading speech being made by Senator Jones (Rep.) of Nevada, in favor of the bil! After showing the disastrous effects of the influx of the Chinese upon the Pacific coast and answering some of the arguments of the opponents of restriction, Mr. Jones said that he had noticed that most of those favoring Chinese immigration were advocates of a high tariff to protect American labor. But, judging from indications, it is not the American laborer, but the lordly manufacturing capitalist who is to be protected as against the European capitalist, and who is to sell everything he has to sell in an American market, one in which other capitalists cannot compete with him, while he buys that which he has to buy-the labor of men-in the most open market. He demands for the latter free trade in its broadest sense, and would have not only free trade in bringing in laborers of our own race, but the Chinese, the most skilful and cunning laborers of the world. The laborer, however, is to buy from his capitalist master in a protective market, but that which he himself has to sell, his labor, and which he must sell every day (for he cannot wait, like the capitalist, for better times or travel here and there to dispose of it), he must sell in the openest market of the world. When the artisans of this country shall be made to understand that the market in which they sell the only thing they have to sell is an open one they will demand, as one of the conditions of their existence, that they shall have an open market in which to buy what they want. As the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Dawes) said he wanted the people to know that the bill was a blow struck at labor, Mr. Jones said he reiterated the assertion with the qualification that it was not a blow at our own, but af
underpaid pauper labor. That cheap labor | be worth preserving if the North had been produces national wealth is a fallacy, as covered by Africans as is South Carolina shown by the home condition of the 350,- to-day, in view of their non-assimilative 000,000 of Chinamen. character? The wisest policy would have "Was the bringing of the little brown been to exclude them at the outset. So man a sort of counter balance to the trades we say of the Chinese to-day, he exclaimunions of this country? If he may be ed, and for greater reason, because their brought here, why may not the products skill makes them more formidable compeof his toil come in? Now, when the la- titors than the negro. Subtle and adept borer is allowed to get that share from his in manipulation, the Chinaman can be labor that civilization has decided he shall put into almost any kind of a factory. His have, the little brown man is introduced. race is as obnoxious to us and as impossiHe (Mr. Jones) believed in protection, ble for us to assimilate with as was the and had no prejudice against the capital- negro race. His race has outlived every ist, but he would have capital and labor other because it is homogeneous, and for equally protected. Enlarging upon the that reason alone. It has imposed its reconsideration that the intelligence or crea- ligion and peculiarities upon its conquertive genius of a country in overcoming ob- ors and still lived. If the immigration is stacles, not its material resources, consti- not checked now, when it is within mantutes its wealth, and that the low wages of ageable limits, it will be too late to check the Chinese, while benefiting individual it. What do we find in the condition of employers, would ultimately impoverish the country by removing the stimulant to create labor-saving machinery and like in- | ventions. Mr. Jones spoke of what he called the dearth of intellectual activity in the South in every department but one, that of politics.
This was because of the presence of a servile race there. The absence of Southern names in the Patent Office is an illustration. We would not welcome the Africans here. Their presence was not a blessing to us, but an impediment in our way. The relations of the white and colored races of the South were now no nearer adjustment than they were years ago. He would prophesy that the African race would never be permitted to dominate any State of the South. The experiment to that end had been a dismal failure, and a failure not because we have not tried to make it succeed, but because laws away above human laws have placed the one race superior to and far above the other. The votes of the ignorant class might preponderate, but intellect, not numbers, is the superior force in this world. We clothed the African in the Union blue and the belief that he was one day to be free was the candle-light in his soul, but it is one thing to aspire to be free and another thing to have the intelligence and sterling qualities of character that can maintain free government. Mr. Jones here expressed his belief that, if left alone to maingovernment, the negro would gradually retrograde and go back to the methods of his ancestors. This, he added, may be heresy, but I believe it to be the truth. If, when the first shipload of African slaves came to this country the belief had spread that they would be the cause of political agitation, a civil war, and the future had been foreseen, would they have been allowed to land?
How much of this country would now
the Indian or the African to induce us to admit another race into our midst? It is because the l'acific coast favor our own civilization, not that of another race, that they discourage the coming of these people. They believe in the homogeneity of our race, and that upon this depends the progress of our institutions and everything on which we build our hopes.
Mr. MORRILL, (Rep.) of Vt., said he appreciated the necessity of restricting Chinese immigration, but desired that the bill should strictly conform to treaty requirements and be so perfected that questions arising under it might enable it to pass the ordeal of judicial scrutiny.
Mr. SHERMAN, (Rep.) of Ohio, referring to the passport system, said the bill adopted some of the most offensive features of European despotism. He was averse to hot haste in applying a policy foreign to the habits of our people, and regarded the measure as too sweeping in many of its provisions and as reversing our immigra tion policy.
After remarks by Messrs. Ingalls, Farley, Maxey, Brown and Teller, the amendment of Mr. Farley, which provides that hereafter no court shall admit Chinese to citizenship, was adopted-yeas 25, nays 22. The following is the vote:
YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Beck, Call, Cameron of Wisconsin, Cockrell, Coke, Fair, Farley, Garland, George, Gorman, Harris, Jackson, Jonas, Jones of Nevada, Maxey, Morgan, Pugh, Ransom, Slater, Telier, Vance, Vest, Voorhees and Walker-25.
NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Allison, Blair, Brown, Conger, Davis of Illinois, Dawes, Edmunds, Frye, Hale, Hill of Colorado, Hoar, Ingalls, Lapham, McDill, McMillan, Miller of New York, Mitchell, Morrill, Plumb, Saunders and Sawyer-22.
Mr. Grover's amendment construing the words "Chinese laborers," wherever used in the act, to mean both skilled and un
skilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining prevailed by the same vote-yeas 25, navs 22.
PASSAGE OF THE BILL.
The question recurred on the final pasMr. BROWN, (Dem.) of Ga., moved to the debate. He would vote against the sage of the bill, and Mr. EDMUNDS closed strike out the requirement for the produc- bill as it now stood, because he believed it tion of passports by the permitted classes to be an infraction of good faith as pledged whenever demanded by the United States by the last treaty; because he believed it authorities. Carried on a rira voce vote, injurious to the welfare of the people of the Chair (Mr. Davis, of Illinois) creating the United States, and particularly the no little merriment by announcing, The people on the Pacific coast, by preventing nay- are loud but there are not many of the development of our great trade with
MR. INGALLS' AMENDMENT.
The vote was then taken and the bill was passed-yeas 29. nays 15.
The following is the vote in detail :—
Upon the bill being reported to the Senate from the Committee of the Whole Mr. INGALL- again moved to limit the suspen-eron of Wisconsin, Cockrell, Coke, Fair, sion of the coming of Chinese laborers to
Mr. JONES, of Nevada, said this limit would hardly have the effect of allaying agitation on the subject as the discussion would be resumed in two or three years, ani ten years, he feared, would not even be a long enough period to enable Congress intelligently to base upon it any future policy.
Farley, Garland, George, Gorman, Hale, Harris, Hill of Colorado, Jackson, Jonas, Jones of Nevada, Miller of California, Miller of New York, Morgan, Pugh, Ransom, Sawyer, Teller, Vance, Vest, Voorhees and Walker-29.
NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Allison, Blair, Brown, Conger, Davis of Illinois, Dawes, Edmunds, Frye, Hoar, Ingalls, Lapham, MeD, McMillan and Morrill-15.
Pairs were announced of Messrs. Camden. Davis of West Virginia, Grover, Hampton, Butler, McPherson, Johnston, Jones of Florida and Pendleton in favor of the bill, with Messrs. Anthony, Windom, Van Wyck, Mitchell, Hawley, Sewell, Platt, Rollins and Sherman against it.
Mr. MILLER, of California, also urged that the shorter period would not measurably relieve the business interest of the Pacific slope, inasmuch as the white immigrants, who were so much desired, would not come there if they believed the Chinese were to be again admitted in ten years. Being interrupted by Mr. Hoar, Mr. FRYE, (Rep.) of Me., in casting his he asserted that that Senator and other vote, stated that he was paired with Mr. republican leaders, as also the last repub- Hill, of Georgia, on all political questions, Hidan nominee for President, had heret but that he did not consider this a politifore given the people of the Pacific slope cal question, and besides, had express pergood reason to believe that they would emission from Senator Hill to vote upon it. cure to them the relief they sought by the bill.
Mr. HOAR, (Rep.) of Mass., briefly replied.
The amendment was lost-yeas 20,
The vote is as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Allison. Blair, Brown, Conger, Davis of Illinois. Dawes, Edmunds, Frye, Hale, Hoar, Ingalls, Lapham, MeDill, McMillan, Mahone, Morrill, Plumb, Sawyer and Teller-20.
NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Beck, Call,Cameron of Wisconsin, Coke, Fair, Farley. Garland, George, Gorman, Jackson, Jonas, Jones of Nevada, Miller of California, Miller of New York, Morgan, Ransom, S.ater, Vance, Voorhees and Walker-21.
Messrs. Butler, Camden, McPherson, Johnston, Davis of West Virginia, Pendleton and Ransom were paired with Messrs. Hawley, Anthony, Sewell, Platt, Van Wyck, Windom and Sherman.
Mr. MITCHELL, (Rep. of Pa., in announcing his pair with Mr. Hampton stated that had it not been for that fact he would vote against the bill, regarding it as un-American and inconsistent with the principles which had obtained in the gov
The title of the bill was amended so as to read, "An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese," though Mr. Hoar suggested that "execute" ought to be stricken out and violate" inserted. The Senate then, at twenty minutes to six, adjourned until to-morrow.
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL.
The Chinese Immigration bill as passed Provides that from and after the expiration of ninety days after the passage of this act and until the expiration of twenty years after its passage the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States shall be suspended, and prescribes a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding one year and a Messrs. Hampton, Pugh, Vest, Rollins fine of not more than $500 against the and Jones of Florida were paired with master of any vessel who brings any Chiabsentees. nese laborer to this country during that
period. It further provides that the classes of Chinese excepted by the treaty from such prohibition-such as merchants, teachers, students, travelers, diplomatic agents and Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the 17th of November, 1880 -shall be required, as a condition for their admission, to procure passports from the government of China personally identifying them and showing that they individually belong to one of the permitted classes, which passports must have been indorsed by the diplomatic representative of the United States in China or by the United States Consul at the port of departure. It also provides elaborate machinery for carrying out the purposes of the act, and additional sections prohibit the admission of Chinese to citizenship by any United States or State court and construes the words "Chinese laborers" to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.
The sentiment in favor of the passage of this bill has certainly greatly increased since the control of the issue has passed to abler hands than those of Kearney and Kalloch, whose conduct intensified the opposition of the East to the measure, which in 1879 was denounced as violating the conscience of the nation." Mr. Blaine's advocacy of the first bill limiting emigrants to fifteen on each vessel, at the time excited much criticism in the Eastern states, and was there a potent weapon against him in the nominating struggle for the Presidency in 1880; but on the other hand it is believed that it gave him strength in the Pacific States.
ther, Gunter, Hammond, of Georgia; Hardy, Harmer, Harris, of New Jersey; Haseltine, Hatch, Hazelton, Heilman, Herndon, Hewitt, of New York; Hill, Hiscock, Hoblitzell, Hoge, Hollman, Horr, Houk, House, Hubbell, Hubbs, Hutchins, Jones, of Texas; Jones, of Arkansas; Jorgenson, Kenna, King, Klotz, Knott, Ladd, Leedom, Lewis, Marsh, Martin, Matson, McClure, McCook, McKenzie, McKinley, MeLane, McMillan, Miller, Mills, of Texas; Money, Morey, Moulton, Murch, Mutchler, O'Neill, Pacheco, Page, Paul, Payson, Pealse, Phelps, Phister, Pound, Randall, Reagan, Rice of Missouri, Richardson, Robertson, Robinson, Rosecrans, Seranton, Shallenberger, Sherwin, Simonton, Singleton, of Mississippi, Smith of Pennsylvania, Smith of Illinois, Smith of New York, Sparks, Spaulding, Spear, Springer, Stockslager, Strait, Talbott, Thomas, Thompson of Kentucky, Tillman, Townsend of Ohio, Townsend of Illinois, Tucker, Turner of Georgia, Turner of Kentucky, Updegraff, of Ohio, Upson, Valentine, Vance, Van Horn, Warner, Washburne, Webber, Welborn, Whitthorne, Williams of Alabama, Willis, Willetts, Wilson, Wise of Pennsylvania, Wise of Virginia, and W. A. Wood of New York-167.
The nays were Messrs. Anderson, Barr, Bragg, Briggs, Brown, Buck, Camp, Candler, Carpenter, Chase, Crapo, Cullen, Dawes, Deering, Dingley, Dunnell, Dwight, Farwell of Iowa, Grant, Hall, Hammond, of New York, Hardenburgh, Harris, of Massachusetts, Haskell, Hawk, Henderson, Hepburn, Hooker, Humphrey, Jacobs, Jones of New Jersey, Joyce, Kasson, Chinese immigration and the attempt to Ketchum, Lord, McCoid, Morse, Norcross, restrict it presents a question of the gra- Orth, Parker, Ramsey, Rice of Ohio, Rice vest importance, and was treated as such of Massachusetts, Rich, Richardson of New in the Senate debate. The friends of the York, Ritchie, Robinson of Massachusetts, bill, under the leadership of Senators Mil-Russel, Ryan, Shultz, Skinner, Scooner, ler and Jones, certainly stood in a better and stronger attitude than ever before.
The anti-Chinese bill passed the House just as it came from the Senate, after a somewhat exended debate, on the 23d of March, 1882. Yeas 167, nays 65. (party lines not being drawn) as follows:
Stone, Taylor, Thompson of Iowa, Tyler,
In the House the debate was participated in by Messrs. Richardson, of South Carolina; Wise and Brumm, of PennsylvaYeas-Messrs. Aikin, Aldrich, Armfield, nia; Joyce, of Vermont; Dunnell, of MinAtkins, Bayne, Belford, Belmont, Berry, nesota; Orth, of Indiana; Sherwin, of IlliBingham, Blackburn, Blanchard, Bliss, nois; Hazelton, of Wisconsin; Pacheco, of Blount, Brewer, Brumm, Buckner, Burrows, California, and Townsend, of Illinois, and of Missouri; Butterworth, Cabell, Cald- others. Án amendment offered by Mr. well, Calkins, Campbell, Cannon, Casser- Butterworth, of Ohio, reducing the period ley, Caswell, Chalmers, Chapman, Clark, of suspension to fifteen years, was rejected. Clements, Cobb, Converse, Cook, Cornell, Messrs. Robinson, of Massachusetts; CurCox, of New York; Cox, of North Caro- tin, of Pennsylvania, and Cannon, of Illilina; Covington, Cravens, Culbertson, Cur-nois, spoke upon the bill, the two latter suptin, Darrell, Davidson; Davis, of Illinois; porting it. The speech of Ex-Governor Davis, of Missouri; Demotte, Deuster, Curtin was strong and attracted much atDezendorf, Dibble, Dibrell, Dowd, Dugro, tention. Mr. Page closed the debate in Ermentrout, Errett, Farwell, of Illinois; favor of the measure. An amendment ofFinley, Flowers, Ford, Forney, Fulkerson, fered by Mr. Kasson, of Iowa, reducing the Garrison, Geddes, George, Gibson, Guen-time of suspension to ten years, was re
jected-yeas 100, nays 131-and the bill was passed exactly as it came from the Senate by a vote o. 167 to 65. The House then adjourned.
Our Merchant Marine.
crues to American labor and capital, and the enterprise is as much a productive industry as the raising of wheat, the spinning of fibre or the smelting of ore. Had the acquired, the 'full' trade of 1860 been maintained without increase $80,000,000 would have been added last year to the national wealth, and the loss from diverted shipbuilding would have swelled the sum to a total of $100,000,000.
the despised one-tenth of exports-$665,000,000 in 1880-determines the profit or loss of the remainder in the home market. During the last fiscal year 11,500,000 gross tons of grain, oil, cotton, tobacco, precious metals, &c., were exported from the United States, and this exportation increases at the rate of 1,500,000 tons annually; 3,800,000 tons of goods are imported, or in all about 15,000,000 tons constitute the existing commerce of this country.
An important current issue is the increase of the Navy and the improvement of the Merchant Marine, and to these questions the National Administration has latterly Our surplus products must find foreign given attention. The New York Herald markets, and to retain them ships controlled has given much editorial ability and re-by and employed in exclusively American search to the advocacy of an immediate interests are essential instrumentalities. change for the better in these respects, and Whatever tends to stimulate competition in its issue of March 10th, 1882, gave the and to prevent combination benefits the proceedings of an important meeting of the producer, and as the prices abroad estabmembers of the United States Naval Insti-lish values here, the barter we obtain for tute held at Annapolis the day before, on which occasion a prize essay on the subject| —“Our Merchant Marine; the Cause of its Decline and the Means to be Taken for its Revival," was read. The subject was chosen nearly a year ago, because it was the belief of the members of the institute that a navy cannot exist without a merchant marine. The naval institute was organized in 1873 for the advancement of professional and scientific knowledge in the navy. It has on its roll 500 members, principally 'If only one-half of the business of carnaval officers, and its proceedings are pub-rying our enormous wealth of surplus prolished quarterly. Rear Admiral C. R. P. ducts could be secured for American ships, Rodgers is president; Captain J. M. Ram- our tonnage would be instantly doubled, say, vice president; Lieutenant Command- and we would have a greater fleet engaged er C. M. Thomas, secretary; Lieutenant in a foreign trade, legitimately our own, Murdock, corresponding secretary, and than Great Britain has to-day. The United Paymaster R. W. Allen, treasurer. There States makes to the ocean carrying-trade were eleven competitors for the prize, which its most valuable contribution, no other is of $100, and a gold medal valued at $50. nation giving to commerce so many bulky The judges were Messrs. Hamilton Fish, tons of commodities to be transported those A. A. Low and J. D. Jones. They awarded long voyages which in every age have the prize to Lieutenant J. D. J. Kelley, U. been so eagerly coveted by marine peoples. S. N., whose motto was Nil Clarius Of the 17,000 ships which enter and clear Equore," and designated Master C. T. Cal- at American ports every year, 4,600 seek a kins. U. S. N.. whose motto was "Mais il cargo empty and but 2,000 sail without obfaut cultiver notre jardin " as next in the taining it. order of merit, and further mentioned the essays of Lieutenant R. Wainwright, United States Navy, whose motto was Causa latet, vis est notissima," and Lieutenant Commander J. E. Chadwick, United States Navy, whose motto was "Spes Meliora," as worthy of honorable mention, without being entirely agreed as to their compara
STRIKING PASSAGES FROM THE PRIZE
From Lieut. Kelley's prize essay many valuable facts can be gathered, and such of these as contain information of permanent value we quote:
"So far as commerce influences this country has a vital interest in the carrying trade, let theorists befog the cool air as they may. Every dollar paid for freight imported or exported in American vessels ac
"Ships are profitable abroad and can be made profitable here, and in truth during the last thirty years no other branch of industry has made such progress as the carrying trade. To establish this there are four points of comparison-commerce, railways, shipping tonnage and carrying power of the world, limited to the years between 1850 and 1880 :