« PreviousContinue »
But it was unanimously decided that fused to do this, laying all the trouble the herds of seals ought to be protect to the abuse of privilege on the part ed by law, and regulations binding of the North American Company for five years were prescribed (Ar- which had had a monopoly of the ticles I and II of the award) which sealing. prohibited all pelagic sealing within A new administration (McKinley's) 60 miles of the Pribilof Islands, or had now come into power (March, from the first of May to the 31st of 1897) and John Sherman was SecreJuly in the North Pacific east of the tary of State. Congress, thereupon, 180th degree of longitude and north in order to destroy the market for of the 35th degree of latitude.* An skins caught by Canadians, prohibited act was passed by Congress April 5, the importation of any sealskins un1894, to enforce the award as to
as to less accompanied by consular certifiAmerican citizens and orders in coun- cates showing that they were not seacil were enacted on April 18, 1894, by captures, but this did not have the dethe British Parliament in relation to sired effect, as the British government British subjects.
still refused to agree to the provisional The United States and Great Brit- treaty. On November 17, 1897, howain were to enforce the restrictive pro- ever, a meeting of experts from the visions of the treaty co-jointly, but the United States, Canada and Great Britofficials in charge of the work were lax ain was held, and the American claims
, and the restrictions became absurdly were unanimously upheld.* On June ineffective. The number of seals 14, 1898, Congress appropriated $473,caught during the next few seasons 151.26 to pay for the Canadian vessels was so great that the herds began to that had been seized many years beshow signs of extinction, but Great fore.f Britain would not listen to any change In August, 1898, a joint American in the regulations until the stipulated and Canadian commission, which had five years had elapsed.f
been authorized by agreement on May The United States, Japan and Rus- 30 preceding, met at Quebec, but it sia then agreed to prohibit pelagic adjourned to meet at Washington in sealing if Great Britain would do the
the following November; was then adsame, but the British government re- journed to February, 1899, and was
again postponed until the summer, but pp. 31–39; Moore, American Diplomacy, pp. 99–
it never reassembled. Unfortunately 104, 212-213; Woolsey, America's Foreign Policy,
this commission had not decided any Snow, Treaties and Topics, pp. 500-509, gives of the issues before adjournment and the award in full. See also Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, 40–41;
as the Paris regulations had expired
Woolsey, America's Foreign Policy, p. 216 et seq.
† Senate Er Doc. No. 177, 53d Congress, 2d * Henderson, pp. 46–57. session; Henderson, American Diplomatic Ques. † Moore, American Diplomacy, p. 104; Hendertions, pp. 42--46.
son, pp. 60-61.
and none had been established to take and the House concurred in the their place the seals are now entirely amendments on the 22d.* The prinunprotected.*
cipal feature of the bill was the proDuring all these years the Chinese hibiting of any vessel from bringing immigration question had been a a
more than fifteen Chinese passengers source of anxiety to the government. to any port of the United States. After the ratification of the Burlin- President Hayes vetoed this bill on game treaty of 1868, a strong prejudice March 1, as being contrary to the against the Chinese sprang up on the Burlingame Treaty, and because by Pacific coast, chiefly because of their its terms immigration was so alleged monopoly of labor at reduced stricted that it fell“ little short of its prices, “ cheap John” being a popu- absolute exclusion."'I Congress failed
” lar phrase applied to them. In 1876 to secure the two-thirds majority a joint committee of both Houses of
necessary to pass the bill over the Congress was sent to the Pacific Coast veto. to investigate the matter. Two re- Therefore in 1880 a commission was ports were submitted — one by Sen- sent to China to negotiate a new ator Sargent, of California, who, after treaty.|| This was signed in Novemthe death of the chairman, Senator ber, 1880, and ratified by the Senate Morton, of Indiana, assumed charge of July 19, 1881. The treaty gave to the the investigation, and the minority re- United States the right to “regulate, port consisting of notes prepared by limit or suspend” the further immiSenator Morton before his death.† gration of Chinese laborers, but this
The matter was brought to the at- country did not have the right to absotention of Congress, I and a bill to re- lutely prohibit it. The treaty also strict Chinese immigration was intro- allowed those Chinese then in the duced early in December, 1878, and country to remain and travel around was referred to the Committee on at their pleasure, and prohibited Education and Labor. It was reported molestation with Chinese merchants, to the House January 14, 1879, and on teachers, students or travelers. § The
$ the 29th was passed by a vote of 155 commissioners also negotiated to 72. After prolonged debate in the treaty relating to general commercial Senate, that body amended and passed
* McPherson, Handbook of Politics, 1880, pp. it February 15, by a vote of 39 to 27,
† Foster, American Diplomacy, p. 293; Hamil* Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, ton's Blaine, pp. 449–451.
$ Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. vii., † Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient,
pp. 514-520. pp. 287–293, gives an epitome of the two reports. I The commissioners
James B. Angell, See also Senate Report No. 689, 44th Congress, president of the University of higan, John T. 2d session; Miscellaneous Doc. No. 20, 45th Con- Swift, of California, and Wm. H. Trescott, of gress, 2d session.
South Carolina. | Foreign Relations, 1870, p. 307, Richardson, & Snow, Treaties and Topics, pp. 163–165; McMessages and Papers, vol. vi., p. 690.
Pherson, Handbook of Politics, 1882, p. 99 et seq.
intercourse, particularly the opium subject and identification card failed trade. This was also ratified by the to agree the rejected person must be Senate.*
sent back to the port of departure at Under the pretext of executing the the expense of the United States. treaty of 1880, an act was passed in Heavy penalties were provided for March 1882, during the first session of false registry and for forgery; and the Forty-seventh Congress, suspend- the masters of vessels who tried to ing Chinese immigration for a period smuggle Chinese into the country or of twenty years, but President Arthur, land any who were unauthorized were considering that this act meant abso- subject to fine and imprisonment and lute prohibition, vetoed it April 4.1 In forfeiture of their vessels.* order to meet this objection, Congress On October 1, 1888, the President passed another bill (approved by the signed a bill known as the Scott Act President, May 6, 1882, but amended (passed by the House September 3, July 5, 1884)| which suspended the and by the Senate on the 7th) amendimmigration for only ten years, but ing the acts of 1882 and 1884. By the imposed some very severe provisions. terms of the Scott Act the permission The Chinese already here were als given to the Chinese laborer to return lowed to remain. Those who were was taken away, the issue of return exempted under the act (that is those certificates was prohibited and all that not laborers), must, if they desire to had been issued were declared void. enter this country, secure certificates This act enraged the Chinese governof identification from the Chinese gov- ment so greatly that it refused to ernment and viséd by the United ratify a treaty then pending by which States consul at the port from which China would have prohibited the they sailed, also giving rank, occu- emigration of laborers to the United pation or profession, value of busi- States.f ness, financial standing, etc. Chinese During the first session of the Fiftylaborers who departed must take out second Congress, the question again return certificates, upon presentation came up for attention. It was claimed of which at the port of entry, they that the provisions of the law of 1882 would be allowed to enter again, but if were being evaded by fraud and forg
ery, and Senator Dolph, of Oregon, * Foster, American Diplomacy, pp. 295–299 ; Blaine, vol. ii., pp. 651-656; Hoar, vol. ii., pp. * Foster, American Diplomacy. pp. 299–301; 120-122; Foreign Relations, 1881, China; Ches.
A. C. Coolidge, The United States as a World ter Holcombe, The Real Chinese Question, pp. Power, pp. 327–340; Hoar, vol. ii., pp. 123–125. 281-283.
† Foster, American Diplomacy, pp. 300–301; † Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. viii., Foreign Relations, 1888, China; see also Presipp. 112-118; McPherson, Handbook of Politics, dent Cleveland's message of October 1, 1888, Rich1882, pp. 92–99.
ardson, Messages and Papers, vol. viii., pp. 630# For these laws see Statutes-at-Large, vol. 635; McPherson, Hand-book of Politics, 1890, xxii., p. 58, vol. xxiii., p. 115; McPherson, 1882, p. 13. The text of the proposed treaty is given pp. 105-107; 1884, pp. 138-141.
in McPherson, 1888, p. 193.
introduced a bill extending the restric- was again extended for the same tion against “ coolies" to all Chinese period by the act of April 29, 1902.* laborers, and provisions were made to
In 1895 the United States was on the prevent evasion and fraud. The Com- verge of war with Great Britain bemittee on Foreign Affairs, after care- cause of a dispute between the latter ful consideration, then instructed Mr. country and Venezuela over a boundDolph to report a bill extending the ary line, the United States claiming act of 1882 for five years with amend the right to interfere under the terms ments providing against fraud. This of the Monroe Doctrine. bill passed the Senate, and went to the The early history of the dispute is House, where on February 18, 1892, a long and complicated, and only a genbill to absolutely prohibit the immi- eral summary will be given here. gration of Chinese was reported and Great Britain claimed that the terripassed April 4. The Senate, however, tory of British Guiana included all the
, amended the House bill, and on April country touched by the estuaries of 25 the amendment was agreed to by a the Essequibo River, and thus that the vote of 43 to 14. As the House re- boundary line between the two counfused to ratify the Senate bill it went tries should be drawn along the sumto a conference committee and after a mit of the hills separating the waterlengthy debate was passed by both sheds of the Orinoco and Essequibo Houses and became a law May 5. rivers. Venezuela disputed this claim, Besides extending the act of 1882 for but no settlement was reached and the ten years, it provided that the Chinese matter was allowed to drift. In 1840 lawfully in this country must take out Sir Robert Schomburgk was commisa certificate of residence within one sioned to lay out the boundaries, and year after the passage of the act, nam- according to his survey Great Britain ing severe penalties for failure to do was entitled to the lands in dispute. SO.
Venezuela protested against this Negotiations were then entered award also, and after much diplomatic upon which finally resulted in the sign- correspondence and negotiation, Lord ing of a treaty March 17, 1894, which Aberdeen on behalf of Great Britain was ratified by the Senate August 13, receded from his position, ordering and proclaimed December 8 of that the Schomburgk monuments marking year. This was similar to the treaty
the boundary removed. of 1888, which had not been ratified. Other boundaries were from time to It extended the former term of re- time suggested but none decided upon, striction for ten years, and this term
and finally in 1886 Venezuela renewed
her claim for the territory included in * McPherson, Handbook of Politics, 1892, pp.
the Schomburgk survey.
† For the text of this treaty, see Foster, American Diplomacy, pp. 450-453.
* Foster, pp. 302-305.
lutely adhered to this policy, and the of instruction to Ambassador Baycontroversy continued until 1894 when ard,* reviewing the history of the disVenezuela sent a force into the dis- pute and of the efforts of the United puted territory and raised her flag at States to settle it, and stating that the Yuruan, The British officials, how- basis of the present intervention was ever, soon afterward removed the flag the Monroe Doctrine.
the Monroe Doctrine. Olney declared but they were arrested for the act.
any permanent political union Great Britain then demanded an between a European and an American apology and reparation. The British State was unnatural and inexpedofficials were released but the dispute ient”; that European interests “are still continued.*
irreconcilably diverse from those of In his annual message to Congress America”; that “ to-day the United on December 3, 1894, President Cleve- States is practically sovereign on this land called attention to the dispute be- continent and its fiat is law upon the tween Venezuela and Great Britain, subjects to which it confines its inter
, and expressed his belief that “its position.”+
' He also asked for a early settlement
is in the definite answer as to whether the Britline of our established policy to re- ish government would or would not move from this hemisphere all causes
submit the Venezuela matter in its enof difference with powers beyond the tirety to arbitration. Lord Salisbury sea,'' at the same time announcing his replied November 26, 1895. He denied
” intention to renew his efforts to induce the contention that the Monroe Docthe disputants to submit their claims trine gave this country the right to to arbitration. A few weeks later interfere in the boundary dispute and (February 22, 1895) Congress passed refused to arbitrate the matter unless a joint resolution recommending that upon the terms already stated by " the President's suggestion
Great Britain. He gave a complete that Great Britain and Venezuela history of the dispute with Venezuela refer their dispute as to boundaries to and again upheld the righteousness of friendly arbitration, be earnestly the British claim. I recommended to the favorable con- On December 17, 1895, President sideration of both parties in interest”! Cleveland sent to Congress his cele
Secretary Olney then prepared a brated message and with it submitted lengthy and exhaustive paper, sent on
* House Er. Doc. No. 1, 54th Congress. 1st July 20, 1895, in the form of a letter
session; Henderson, pp. 417–433, where the text
of the despatch is given in full; Cleveland, p. 259 * For the early history see Henderson, A merican Diplomatic Questions, pp. 411-417; Cleveland, † A. B. Hart, Foundations of American Foreign Presidential Problems, pp. 173-227.
Policy, pp. 221-222 (The Macmillan Co.); Moore, + Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. ix., American Diplomacy, pp. 253–254.
For text see Henderson, American Diplomatic | Statutes-at-Large, vol. xxviii., p. 971; Cleve- Questions, pp. 434-440. See also Cleveland, land, Presidential Problems, p. 251.
Presidential Problems, pp. 262-269.