No. 63.
Mr. Tsai Kwoh
Ching to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Washington, October 8, 1884. (Received October 8.)
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 he is daily receiving applications from Chinese merchants residing in California for certificates of identification, who desire to proceed to China and foreign countries and return to the United States.
The subject having been brought to the notice of the collector of customs at San Francisco, he states that he cannot readmit any Chinese belonging to the exempt class to the country on a certificate issued here. During an argument recently made in the United States court, Judge Hoffman presiding, the court questioned the collector as to his views of the status of the exempt class of Chinese residents under section 6 of the amended restriction act, and he replied as follows:’ “The certificate must be issued in China by the Chinese Government, and viséd there.”
The court then asked his views in regard to Chinese residing in foreign countries and who desire to come to the United States. The collector replied, “They must go to China and obtain certificates before they can come to the United States.”
If the position of the collector be sustained, it follows that Chinese merchants and others belonging to the exempted class residing in the United States cannot visit China or any other country and return without obtaining credentials in China.
It also follows that Chinese exempts residing in foreign countries cannot come to the United States without first visiting China to obtain credentials.
Upon examining the treaty of 1880, I find that the restrictions apply only to Chinese laborers and not to Chinese merchants, who have the right “to go and come of their own free will and accord.”
Now, the collector’s decision, holding that these merchants must go to China to procure certificates before they may go abroad and return, impairs their right under the treaty, and I cannot believe this is the meaning of section 6 of the amended act. The section evidently alludes only to Chinese persons of the exempted class residing in China “who shall be about to come to the United States;” but no provision seems to have been made for the Chinese exempts residing in this country, nor for those in foreign countries, unless they are subjects of the latter. The certificate of the Chinese Government evidences the right of the holder “to come within the United States.”
Many of the Chinese merchants in the United States have large interests in Victoria, British Columbia, the Sandwich Islands, Cuba, and Panama. Scarcely a steamer arrives from or departs for those countries without one or more of the class mentioned as passengers.
A large number of certificates was issued last year to this class of exempts by the Chinese consulate at San Francisco, under the act of 1882, and many of the holders have not yet returned to the United States. In a note of the Treasury Department to the collector at San Francisco, dated March 14, 1884, and inclosed in one of your excellency’s [Page 116] notes to the Chinese minister, it is stated that the certificate issued by the Chinese consul-general at San Francisco is to be regarded as issued under the authority of the Chinese Government, in conformity with the sixth section of the act approved May 6, 1882, and that such certificate is to be recognized as prima facie evidence of the holder’s right to return to the United States.
Now, if the collector at San Francisco insists that these merchants cannot be readmitted into the United States without going to China to obtain new certificates, it would result in a great hardship to them, and would, in effect, prohibit their trade between those places above mentioned and the United States.
The Chinese Government will find it next to impossible to identify its subjects who have been for many years living abroad, and whose property and business are either in the United States or other countries.
It would also be impossible for the American consuls in China to ascertain the facts. Judge Hoffman, in the case referred to above, asked the collector, “How can a Chinese merchant who has been living in London or Valparaiso for twenty-five years be identified in China”
It seems to me, however, that if the certificates be issued by a Chinese consul, this class of Chinese exempts will be properly identified, and that it will not violate the amended act.
Large numbers of Chinese merchants here desire to visit China and other countries on business, and, before doing so, they are pressing the Chinese consulate with the question of their right to return. I am therefore compelled to ask of your excellency a reply to the subjoined questions:
- 1.
- Where Chinese subjects residing in the United States and belonging to the exempted class desire to visit China or any foreign country, will the certificate of a Chinese consul, issued by authority of the Chinese Government, conforming to that prescribed by section 6 of the amended act, and presented by them, be considered prima facie evidence of their right to return?
- 2.
- Where Chinese subjects belonging to the exempted class and residing in foreign countries desire to visit the United States, will the certificate of a Chinese consul, issued by authority of the Chinese Government, conforming to that prescribed by section 6 of the amended act, and presented by them, be considered prima facie evidence of their right to enter?
An interpretation of the law on these points, Mr. Secretary, will give great satisfaction to a large number of Chinese subjects, and I venture to ask your early consideration of the subject.
Accept, &c.,