Mr. Denby to Mr.
Blaine.
Legation of
the United States,
Peking, October 22, 1890.
(Received December 3.)
No. 1181.]Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith a
translation of a communication received from the foreign office, together
with a copy of my answer thereto. The purport of this communication is a
reiterated complaint
[Page 207]
that you have
failed to send a reply to the representations made to you by the Chinese
minister at Washington, touching the repeal of the Chinese exclusion act of
October, 1888.
The foreign office again appeals to me to address you on the subject, and to
ascertain finally what action will be taken in the premises, and send them a
specific reply. In my answer I have undertaken to explain that Congress
alone, under our form of government, has the power of legislation, and that
you could not in advance determine what its action might be. The
communication alluded to by the foreign office will be found in my dispatch
No. 1123 of July 25, 1890. Without specific instructions from you, I do not
feel myself authorized, nor do I deem it prudent for me, to enter upon a
discussion with the yamên either upon the merits of the “Scott act” or of
the mode of reconciling China to its results and effects.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No.
1181—Translation.]
The Tsung-li yamên to Mr.
Denby.
Peking, October 19,
1890.
Informal.]Your Excellency: Upon the 16th of June, 1890,
the yamên had the honor to in form Your Excellency that in the matter of
the new restriction act, an act abrogating existing treaties, repeated
communications were sent to the Chinese minister a-Washington,
requesting him to ask that it be rejected or repealed, but the Honorable
Secretary of State has failed to send a reply to the representations
made to him, and Your Excellency was therefore requested in the yamên’s
communication to address Mr. Blaine requesting the repealing or
rejection of this vexatious act.
Upon the 26th of July, 1890, Your Excellency replied to the effect that
you had transmitted a translation of the yamên’s communication to the
Honorable Secretary of State for his perusal, but it would be necessary
to wait a reply from the Department of State before sending a specific
reply, etc. Now, the ministers would observe that this matter has been
pending for over 4 months, and if the Honorable Secretary of State has
at heart the friendly relations of the two countries, he certainly
should not permit or be willing that this matter should be delayed, set
aside, and take no notice of it. The ministers would beg Your Excellency
to again address the Honorable Secretary of State, and ascertain finally
what action will be taken in the premises, and send them a specific
reply, and oblige.
Cards with compliments, etc.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 1181.]
Mr. Denby to the
Tsung-li yamên.
Legation of the United States,
Peking, October 22,
1890.
Informal.]Your Excellencies: I have the honor to
acknowledge the receipt of the communication of Your Excellencies of the
19th instant, wherein you state that repeated communications had been
sent to the Chinese minister in Washington, requesting him to ask the
Honorable Secretary of State that the Chinese exclusion act of October,
1888, be rejected or repealed. Your Excellencies state that to these
requests the Secretary of State has failed to send a reply. Your
Excellencies further state that you had requested me to address the
Honorable Secretary of State on the subject, and that I informed Your
Excellencies on the 26th of July last that I had transmitted a
translation of the yamên’s communications to the Honorable Secretary of
State, and that I awaited his instructions. I have now to state that I
have received no reply from the Honorable Secretary of State on this
subject. Your Excellencies will permit me, however, to remind you that
under our form of government the making of laws, as well as the
repealing or altering of laws already enacted, is intrusted to the two
Houses of Congress. The President has the power of vetoing any act of
Congress, but his veto may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of the
members of the two Houses. It is not within the
[Page 208]
power of the Secretary of State to reject or
repeal any law. Your Excellencies ask me “to again address the Honorable
Secretary of State, and ascertain finally what action will be taken in
the premises, and send them (you) a specific reply.”
From my statement above made of the power of the Honorable Secretary of
State, it is plain that it will be impossible for him to state in
advance what the action of Congress may be on any subject. I will take
great pleasure in communicating to the Honorable Secretary of State a
translation of your present communication. In this connection, I have
the honor to inform Your Excellencies that the ordinance of the city of
San Francisco, which purported to exclude the Chinese residents of that
city from a certain portion of the city, and of which you complained to
me in your communication to me of June 17 last, has been decided by the
United States courts to be null and void and of no effect.
In my communication to you of July 26 last, I plainly intimated that this
result would follow an appeal to the courts.
I have, etc.,
