Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 1, 1884

No. 57.
Mr. Cheng Tsao Ju to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Chinese Legation,
Washington , July 12, 1884. (Received July 12.)

Sir: I have the honor to inform you that I have received a communication from Mr. Huang Tsun Hsien, Chinese consul-general at San Francisco, stating that on the 5th June last the steamer Rio de Janeiro arrived at San Francisco with a party of Chinese laborers bound for British Columbia, and applied to the consul-general lor transit certificates, for the purpose of temporarily landing at San Francisco; that Surveyor Morton refused to permit them to land, and that our consul, Mr. F. A. Bee, addressed a note to the collector of customs, Mr. Sears, on the subject, whose reply (a copy of which I inclose) was that—

Chinese laborers arriving at a port in the United States, and departing from the same port, are not in transit across the territory of the United States, and therefore not entitled to land, but should be kept on board ship and transferred to another vessel departing for a foreign port, &c.

The opinion of the honorable Attorney General dated 26th December, 1882, to you, Mr. Secretary, sets forth that “this Government does not think that a Chinese laborer coming to this country merely to pass through it can be considered as within the prohibition of the law, he being neither an immigrant nor a laborer coming here as laborer,” &c.

The honorable Secretary of the Treasury issued a circular, dated January 23, 1883, in relation to the transit of Chinese laborers.

Chinese laborers applying to the consul-general for a transit certificate, in transit, either passing through the territory of the United States or touching at San Francisco, in their journey to or from the Hawaiian Islands, Panama, British Columbia, and other places, were carefully examined by him.

Having satisfied himself with their status as mere transient passengers, the consul-general issued to them the transit certificates. This practice has been accepted by the collector of customs, who, after examining the transit certificates, has hitherto permitted Chinese in transit to land.

There has not been a single case where the Chinese in transit remained in this country arid evaded the circular of the Secretary of the Treasury. Now the collector states that the transit could not be applied to Chinese laborers en route to British Columbia, and that they should be kept on board ship and transferred to another vessel departing for a foreign port.

Besides, there are no steamers running directly to and fro between China, British Columbia, Panama, and other foreign ports on the American continent.

Thus Chinese necessarily touch at San Francisco before they can take another steamer going to or from those places. While waiting for a passage, sometimes they have to wait for ten days, and sometimes twenty days, as the departure of the vessel is uncertain. If they are provided with the consular certificate, they are still refused permission to land temporarily; so that the Chinese, wishing either to visit their relatives, or purchase things, or to find friends with whom to confer upon any transaction or business, cannot do so. This really would cause much inconvenience to them.

Moreover, if they were refused permission to land temporarily, and kept on board ship to wait for another vessel, despondency would pervade their minds and sickness might arise from it. It seems to me that the United States Government would not do such an inhumane act. Though the Chinese transient passengers are permitted to land temporarily, and wait for a passage by another vessel leaving for a foreign port, yet they do not remain in this country. There is no harm done to the United States.

I lay this matter before you with a view that you, Mr. Secretary, will exercise your impartial and fair judgment and consideration on the immigration act, in order, firstly, that the restrictions apply only to Chinese coming to the United States as laborers, but not to Chinese in transit, passing through this country or touching at one of her ports, and, secondly, that the Chinese transient passengers may be free from embarrassment.

Accept, &c.,

CHENG TSAO JU.

[Inclosure in Chinese minister’s note of May 12, 1884.]

Collector Sears to Consul Bee.

Custom-House, San Francisco, Cal.,
Collector’s Office , June 7, 1884.

Sir: Your communication of yesterday, calling my attention to the circulars of the Secretary of the Treasury dated January 23, 1883, relating to Chinese laborers in transit through the United States, is received, and after a careful examination of said order, and the opinion of the Attorney-General embodied therein, I am of opinion—

First. Subdivision 1 requires that when any Chinese laborer in transit through the territory of the United States enters at a port where there is a Chinese consul, said consul may furnish him with a descriptive transit certificate showing the place and date of his arrival, also the place from whence he intends to depart from the United States, and that his journey is to be continuous and direct, &c. Said certificates shall be accepted as prima facie evidence.

This first subdivision evidently refers to a Chinese entering one port of the United States and traveling across our territory to some other port in the United States, and thence departing for some foreign port. When the said Chinese reaches the port of departure in the United States, then his said transit certificate shall be received by the customs authorities there as prima facie evidence that he had the right only to cross the country, but not to remain in it.

Subdivision 2 requires that in the absence of such certificate other evidence may be received of the fact of a bona fide transit across the territory of the United States intended to be traversed. This subdivision also contemplates that the person is to traverse the territory of the United States to some other port for departure.

Subdivision 3 relates to a number of Chinese under charge of an agent, who may make affidavit that he will transport them without delay across the territory of the United States and deliver them on board ship. The purport of this subdivision is that the agent will take his body of Chinese from the port of entry to the port of exit, without unnecessary delay, across the territory of the United States, and place them on board some ship leaving for a foreign port. Again, this subdivision requires descriptive lists of all such Chinese to be made, showing the place of arrival and place of intended departure, the route to be traveled, and that a copy of the same shall be forwarded to the collector of customs at the port of exit, who will see that they all duly leave the United States.

It is clear Jo my mind that the whole tenor and purport of the order was intended to and does relate to Chinese crossing the territory of the United States.

I am further of the opinion that Chinese laborers arriving at a port in the United States and departing from the same port are not in transit across the territory of the United States, and therefore not entitled to laud, but should be kept on board ship and transferred to another vessel departing for a foreign port, to which their tickets entitle them to go.

In regard to the system of “bonded security” established by you as a guarantee for the return of a Chinese lauded who is in transit from one foreign port to another via this, arriving at and departing from this port, I beg to state that the bond does not run to the United States, and, if it did, I have been unable to find any authority of law for such bond.

A bond given to permit the performance of au unlawful act is void; therefore I must respectfully decline to grant permission for the said Chinese to land.

I am, &c.,

W. H. SEARS,
Collector.

Col. F. A. Bee,
His Imperial Chinese Majesty’s Consul, San Francisco, Cal.