No. 61.
Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Tsai Kwoh
Ching.
Washington, August 14, 1884.
Sir: I have now the honor, agreeably to my promise of the 17th ultimo, to advert to the note of the Chinese minister of the 12th ultimo, touching the transit of Chinese laborers across the territory of the United States.
The case presented is where a party of Chinese laborers, bound for British Columbia, arrived at San Francisco on board of the steamer Bio de Janeiro, June 5 last, and were refused permission to land by the customs authorities at that port, who required that the Chinese should be kept on shipboard until their transfer direct to another vessel departing for their place of destination.
The Chinese minister accordingly refers to the custom hitherto in force in regard to the transit of such Chinese across our territory, and complains that the decision of the customs authorities at San Francisco is in conflict with the opinion of the Attorney-General upon the general subject involved in such transit, dated December 26, 1882, to which reference is made.
In the case under consideration the point appears to have been, according to the interpretation of the law of May 6, 1882, by the customs authorities at San Francisco, that Chinese laborers arriving at a port in the United States from which they must take their departure for their destination outside our territory cannot be said to be in transitu, and consequently are not privileged to land.
Under the provisions of the act of Congress of May 6, 1882, the Secretary of the Treasury, as you are aware, was charged with the execution of the same, and I cannot permit myself to believe nor to think that the Chinese minister himself doubts that the collector of the port of San Francisco was prompted by any other motive than that of rigidly enforcing the letter of the law, in pursuance of his understood instructions, [Page 114] having, at the same time, due regard for the personal rights and privileges of a class of inhibited persons.
The minister’s note itself, moreover, confirms me in the opinion that in all previous cases where Chinese laborers have come to the United States and have necessarily proceeded by our territory to their place of residence in a foreign country, every reasonable and proper measure for their comfort and convenience has been cheerfully accorded. It may, I think, be safely assumed, then, that the action of the collector in not permitting the Chinese laborers to land, under the circumstances of the present case, was from a sincere and natural desire to perform his duty as he understood it.
Be that as it may, the question will at once be referred to the Attorney-General, to decide what the rights of Chinese laborers in transitu, are in view of the recent legislation of July 5, 1884, two copies of which law I herewith transmit.
It is no doubt a fact that the Chinese laborers who arrived at San Francisco by the Rio de Janeiro have ere this sailed for their destination.
I shall at once inclose copies of this correspondence to the Secretary of the Treasury, and upon receiving the opinion of the Attorney-General make haste to acquaint you with its purport.
I avail, &c.,