Mr. Tsui Kwo Yin to Mr. Blaine.
Washington, D. C., December 16, 1889. (Received December 17).
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 6th instant respecting the transit of Chinese laborers through the United States.
In that note you are kind enough to inform me that in consequence of the prohibition of the entrance [immigration] of Chinese laborers into the United States it became necessary for the Secretary of the Treasury to devise measures to prevent a violation of that prohibition under cover of the privilege of transit. It would seem to be inferred from this declaration that under cover of transit the laws against immigration were being violated. My note which occasioned this correspondence related to the transit between the eastern ports of the United States and San Francisco. The records of the Imperial consulate-general at San Francisco show that no abuse of the transit privilege has existed since the regulation of January 23, 1883; and it is understood that a report to the same effect was made by the customs officials of San Francisco to the Treasury Department before the adoption of the regulations of September 28 last, that is, that every Chinese laborer exercising the privilege of transit has passed through and out of the United States with a single exception, and that exception was occasioned by death en route.
The modification of the third paragraph of the last-named regulations proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury does not in any manner remove the objection presented in my note of November 5 last. Neither the Chinese Government nor its representatives in the United States have any control or influence over the transportation companies in this country, and it is understood that these companies centering at the port of New York [through which the Chinese residents of Cuba principally pass] are unwilling to give any bond for this traffic. It thus leaves the individual Chinese subject under the necessity of giving the bond of $200. As these subjects are strangers in New York their only practicable way of complying with the requirement is to make a deposit in that city of the sum named, and as the bond is not released until proof is produced that the subject has actually departed from the port of San Francisco, it is readily seen how great is the inconvenience even in case the subject should be possessed of the ready cash. And in default of this $200 the regulations amount to an absolute prohibition and a plain violation of the treaty. The effect of the new regulations has been to put an end to the transit through the port of New York.
I have no disposition to prolong this discussion by repeating the arguments made in my note of November 5 last, but I respectfully suggest that they remain unanswered by your note of the 6th instant. The action of the Congress of the United States in the passage of the act of October 1, 1888, in the opinion of my Government manifested an open disregard of treaty obligations on the part of the legislative department of the Government of the United States.
If anything should occur to make it appear that a similar spirit influenced the conduct of any of the Executive Departments of that Government, [Page 150] its effect would create upon my Government, I fear, a most unfavorable impression.
Knowing the high sense of justice which marks your excellency’s conduct, I had hoped that you might, and still hope that you may, bring about a solution of this question in accordance with treaty stipulations.
In this connection, I beg again to direct your attention to the note of my predecessor of July 8 last, and to ask that I may be informed at a convenient time, of the views of your Government on the questions therein presented, in order that I may be enabled to communicate them to my Government, which awaits an answer with the solicitude which the gravity of the subject naturally occasions.
I am, etc,