is allowed in the United States. Contrast this with the treatment of Chinese merchants in this country. Although by express treaty stipu lation they are in the United States to be "allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord," and are guarantied the treatment "accorded to the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation," for the past 8 years no such treatment has been extended to them. While the merchants of all other nations of the earth are permitted free and unobstructed entrance into and departure from the ports of the United States, the Chinese merchant has by the legislation of your Congress had thrown around him the most obstructive, embarrassing, and humiliating restrictions. He is treated by the customs authorities with much the same surveillance as is extended to vagrants or criminals; and before he is permitted to land he is required to produce a certificate, the strict conditions of which make it difficult and expensive to comply with, and humiliating and objectionable to the man of honor and selfrespect, it being necessary to set forth the amount and details of the business in which he is and has been engaged, with a statement of his family history and occupation, and all these matters are subject to the examination and approval of the American consul at the Chinese or foreign port whence he sails.

Only within the present month two of the most respectable Chinese merchants of Hong Kong arrived in the port of San Francisco, desiring to land temporarily and visit their customers in the various cities of the Pacific States; but, because they did not bring with them from that for. eign port the certificate above described, which it was impossible for them to obtain, they were kept as prisoners on board the vessel upon which they arrived until it sailed on its return voyage, notwithstanding the collector of customs was satisfied they belonged to the exempt class entitled, under the treaty, to the same free entrance as a British or other merchant, and they were driven back upon their long voyage across the Pacific Ocean; a condition of things which your President 4 years ago recognized as contrary to the treaty and urged your Congress to rectify. (Senate Ex. Doc. 118, Forty-ninth Congress, first session.)

Such, Mr. Secretary, are some of the contrasts in the observance and enforcement of treaty rights between the two nations. Can you wonder that the Imperial Government is growing restive and impatient under such dissimilarity of treatment, and is urging me to obtain from you some satisfactory explanation of the conduct of the American authorities in the past and some assurance of the course to be pursued in the future?

You will observe that the object had in view in the cited note of this legation addressed to your predecessor was to induce the Executive to recommend Congress to undo the wrong and hardships inflicted upon my countrymen by its legislation; and in the subsequent note addressed to you this object was brought to your attention, and the hope was expressed that, with your earnest desire to deal justly and to "maintain the public duty and the public honor," you would find a speedy method of satisfying the reasonable expectations of the Imperial Government. In view of the fact that one session of your Congress has passed and another is already well advanced without any communication from the President, and of your continued silence respecting my notes, I am being reluctantly forced to the conclusion that you regard that method of adjustment as impracticable. It will make me happy to be informed that this conclusion is erroneous, and that your Congress can yet be induced to "maintain the public duty and the public honor." But, if this, unfortunately, may not be, then I can see only one other

proper solution, and that the one indicated in the fifth point of my pred ecessor's note of July 8, 1889. The public law of all nations recognizes the right of China to resort to retaliation for these violated treaty guaranties, and such a course applied to the American missionaries and merchants has been recommended to the Imperial Government by many of its statesmen; but its long-maintained friendship for the United States, and its desire to observe a more humane and elevated standard of intercourse with the nations of the world, point to a better method of adjustment. Conscious that it has religiously kept faith with all its treaty pledges towards your country, my Government is persuaded that America will not be blind to its own obligations, nor deaf to the appeals made to it on behalf of the Chinese subjects who have been so griev ously injured in their treaty rights by the legislation of Congress.

It is a principle of public law, recognized, I believe, by all international writers, that a treaty between two independent nations is a contract, and that the nation which fails to execute or violates it is responsible to the other for all injuries suffered by its subjects thereby, and that it can not escape responsibility because of the action or failure of action of any internal power or authority in its system of government. But I need not quote any foreign publicists on this subject, because your own country furnishes abundant authority to sustain this position. The great American law writer Wheaton, whose wisdom and justice are recognized throughout all countries, says:

The King (or the President) can not compel the Chambers (or Congress), neither can he compel the courts; but the nation is not the less responsible for the breach of faith thus arising out of the discordant action of the international machinery of its constitution. (Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 459.)

Citation has already been made of the declarations of the Solicitor of your own Department to the same effect in even stronger language. And it seems that the distinguished statesmen who have preceded you in your great office have held the same just principle. I need only quote the words of Mr. Secretary Fish:

The foreign nation whose rights are invaded thereby [by legislation of Congress] has no less cause of complaint and no less right to decline to recognize any internal legislation which presumes to limit or curtail rights accorded by treaty. (Wharton, section 138.)

But the Supreme Court of your country, in the decision in which it sustained the act of 1888, has been very explicit in recognizing this principle. It declares that "a treaty # is in its nature a contract between nations," and that "it must be conceded that the act of 1888 is in contravention of express stipulations of the treaty of 1868 and of the supplemental treaty of 1880," and, although the act of Congress is binding upon the internal authorities, that act does justify complaint on the part of the other contracting party. And this doctrine is made more clear by the learned American judges whose opinions are cited approvingly by the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Curtis says:

The sovereign between whom and the United States a treaty has been made has a right to expect its stipulations to be kept with scrupulous good faith. (2 Curtis, C. C., 456.)

And again he says:

The responsibility of the Government to a foreign nation for the exercise of these powers (by legislation) is to be met and justified to the foreign nation according to the requirements of the rules of public law. (19 Howard, 629.)

And the Supreme Court has held:

A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the governments which are parties to it. If this fails, its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress. (112 U. S. R., 598.)

And further:

If the country with which the treaty is made is dissatisfied with the action of the legislative department, it may present its complaint to the executive head of the government and take such other measures as it may deem essential for the protection of its interests. (124 U. S. R., 194.)

To the foregoing I must add the declarations of two of the present members of that court. Justice Miller says, as to reclamations growing out of legislative violation of treaties:

Questions of this class are international questions, and are to be settled between the foreign nations interested in the treaties and the political department of our Government. (1 Woolworth, 156.)

And Justice Blatchford says:

Congress legislates

subject to the responsibilities of this Government, in its national character, for any breach of its faith with foreign nations. (8 Blatchford, 310.)

My predecessor expressed his amazement that the Supreme Court should announce the doctrine that the act of Congress must be obeyed though it is in plain violation of the treaty, and that surprise has been shared by my Government; but it is my duty to do justice to this high tribunal. I must express my profound obligations to it for making the further declarations in its opinion given above, but especially for citing the decisions from which I have just quoted. These show that this august body, while it confesses its obligation to enforce the will of Congress within the United States, recognizes a broader and higher obligation and responsibility as resting upon the American Government-an obligation which requires it to see that the stipulations of its treaties are "kept with scrupulous good faith," and a responsibility which demands that "any breach of its faith with foreign nations is to be met and justified * * according to the requirements of the rules of public law." Hence, Mr. Secretary, I present this view of the question to you, with the utmost confidence in your readiness to accept whatever responsibilities have attached to your Government for the "breach of its faith" as the resulting act of the legislation of your Congress, supported, as I am, in my demand, not only by the international authority of all nations, but by your own Department and by the highest tribunal and judges of your own nation.

I have shown you how the legislation of your Congress, which is conceded by your Supreme Court to be in violation of the treaties, has impaired or destroyed the rights and property interests of the three classes of Chinese laborers described, as well as of Chinese subjects entitled to free transit through the United States and of Chinese merchants obstructed in their business and denied the privileges extended to those of other nations. I abstain for the present from presenting any formal estimate of damages and losses sustained by the above classes of subjects through the legislative infringement of the treaties. I shall await your reply to this and the previous notes of this legation, in the hope that even yet a method may be found of undoing the wrongful legislation and restoring to their treaty rights the Chinese subjects now in, or entitled to come into, the United States. But, whatever may be the ulti

mate decision of your Government on this point, I am persuaded that I have given you such cogent reasons to support the expectation of the Imperial Government to be informed without further delay of the views and intentions of your Executive respecting the treaty obligations toward China, that you will favor me with an early communication on the subject.

I improve, etc.,

TSUI KWO YIN.

Mr. Pung to Mr. Blaine.

CHINESE LEGATION,

Washington, May 23, 1890. (Received May 24.)

SIR: It becomes my duty to bring to your attention the condition of the Chinese subjects resident in the city of San Francisco, Cal., and to invoke for them the protection of the Government of the United States against the injustice and hardships sought to be inflicted upon them by the local authorities of that city.

I am informed that in the month of March last an order or law was passed by the authorities of the city of San Francisco requiring the Chinese residents of that city to remove from their present homes and places of business to a certain prescribed district in a remote suburb of that city, and declaring it unlawful for any Chinese person to reside, locate, or carry on business in any other place within said city, except in the prescribed district, under penalty of imprisonment. I send you with this note a copy of this order or law as it was printed in one of the newspapers of that city.

I am now in receipt of a telegram from the imperial consul-general at San Francisco, stating that a large number of Chinese subjects have been arrested by the authorities of that city, in accordance with the provisions of the order or pretended law above cited, because of their failure to abandon their homes and places of business and remove to the prescribed district. The mere statement of this fact is, I have no doubt, enough to show you the enormity of the outrage which is sought to be inflicted upon my countrymen; but when I add that it involves the breaking up of the homes and places of business of many thousands of persons who have been there peacefully established for a long series of years, and imperils the possession and enjoyment of property to the value of hundreds of millions of dollars, you will recognize the aggravated character and extent of the wrong which is being perpetrated in flagrant violation of treaty rights solemnly guarantied to these suffering Chinese.

Article 3 of the treaty of 1880 between China and the United States is as follows:

If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now either permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.

You will remember that the treaty from which this article is quoted was negotiated by commissioners sent to Peking from Washington for that express purpose, and that these commissioners, in order to induce

the Chinese Government to make the treaty modification which they desired, gave, among others, the following assurance:

So far as those Chinese are concerned who, under treaty guaranty, have come to the United States, the Government recognizes but one duty, and that is, to maintain them in the exercise of their treaty privileges against any opposition, whether it takes the shape of popular violence or of legislative enactment. (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1881, p. 173.)

The foregoing assurance was, no doubt, given in all sincerity and with an earnest intention that it would be carried out, if, unhappily, the occa sion should ever arise. The statement which I have made of the present situation of the unfortunate Chinese subjects now resident in San Francisco certainly presents an urgent occasion to make effective the foregoing treaty stipulation and the solemn assurance above cited; and I feel that I can with confidence appeal to you to cause the power of your Government to be exerted to maintain these subjects in the exercise of their treaty privileges. It would be superfluous for me to indicate to you what course should be adopted to this end, but I venture to suggest that many of these subjects are poor and friendless, and are unable to maintain their right to peaceable residence through the long and expensive litigation of the courts, and that, unless they receive the protecting care of the Government of the United States, they will be helpless victims of this corporate outrage.

The telegram of the consul-general leads me to fear that, unless prompt measures are adopted, the authorities of San Francisco will cause great distress and injury to my countrymen, and I therefore beg of you to take whatever steps you may think proper and necessary with as little delay as may be found convenient; and I shall esteem it a favor to be informed of your action.

. I improve, etc.,

PUNG KWANG YU.

Order No.

[Inclosure. From San Francisco Examiner, March 5, 1890.]

designating the location and the district in which the Chinese shall reside and carry on business in this city and county.

The people of the city and county of San Francisco do hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. It is hereby declared unlawful for any Chinese to locate, reside, or carry on business within the limits of the city and county of San Francisco, except in that district of said city and county hereinafter prescribed for their location.

SEC. 2. The following portions of the city and county of San Francisco are hereby set apart for the location of all Chinese who may desire to reside, locate, or carry on business within the limits of said city and county of San Francisco, to wit:

Within that tract of land described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the easterly line of Kentucky street with the southwesterly line of First avenue; thence southeasterly along the southwesterly line of First avenue to the northwesterly line of I street; thence southwesterly along the northwesterly line of I street to the southwesterly line of Seventh avenue; thence northwesterly along the southwesterly line of Seventh avenue to the southeasterly line of Railroad avenue; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of Railroad avenue to Kentucky street; thence northerly along the easterly line of Kentucky street to the southwesterly line of First avenue and place of commencement.

SEC. 3. Within 60 days after the passage of this ordinance all Chinese now located, residing in, or carrying on business within the limits of said city and county of San Francisco shall either remove without the limits of said city and county of San Francisco or remove and locate within the district of said city and county of San Francisco herein provided for their location.

SEC. 4. Any Chinese residing, locating, or carrying on business within the limits of the city and county of San Francisco contrary to the provisions of this order shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months.