I now inclose a translation of another communication from the yamên on the
same subject. The yamên states that several months have elapsed and it has
received no intimation from me whether I have or have not received a reply
from the honorable Secretary of State. The yamên proceeds to state that it
has received from Chinese in the United States frequent remonstrances
against the new law and that arrests under it have been made in New York.
This latter statement I think can not be true, as the law has one year to
run from May 6, 1892, before prosecutions can begin.
The yamên then argues at considerable length that the new law violates the
treaty of 1880. It cites the “favored nation” clause in that treaty, and the
third article thereof, and claims that, as the matter of certificates under
the new act does not apply to the citizens of other countries, it should not
apply to Chinese subjects.
I endeavored in my communication to the yamên of August 18, 1892, to show
that the new law was not in contravention of the treaty of 1880, so far as
it related to Chinese laborers who have gone to the United States since the
treaty of 1880, because such persons had gone thither in violation of the
acts of 1882 and 1881. But the yamên makes no distinction between Chinese
laborers who were in the United States at the date of the treaty and those
who have since unlawfully gone to the United States.
The yamên then points out the difference between the system of certificates
and the passport and travel-certificate system prevailing in China, and
claims that the two systems are not at all alike.
The yamen proceeds to speak kindly of the Government of the United States and
of myself, and expresses the hope that you will request Congress to abrogate
the new law. It concludes with the statement that it has addressed the
governor of the Liang Kuang (the two southern provinces) to ascertain the
views of the Chinese merchants of Canton and Hongkong and, on a report
having been received, the question of making new rules for the future will
be considered.
I have acknowledged the receipt of this communication and have informed the
yamên that I have not received any specific instructions on the subject
under discussion.
[Inclosure in No.
1607.—Translation.]
The Foreign Office to Mr.
Denby.
November 24,
1892.
No. 17.]
Upon the 18th of August, 1892, the prince and ministers had the honor to
receive a communication from the minister of the United States, in reply
to the yamên’s dispatch relative to the exclusion acts of the United
States against Chinese laborers, wherein the minister of the United
States was requested to bring the attention of
[Page 137]
the President of the United States to the unjust
manner in which Chinese subjects have been treated. The minister of the
United States stated that it would afford him great pleasure to send to
the Department of State a translation of the prince and ministers’
communication; and, after having received instructions, he would
communicate with the yamên further upon the subject.
The yamen have duly perused the contents of the minister’s communication,
which contains in substance the provisions of the supplemental treaty
and also gives a review of the nine articles of the new act of May 5,
1892, which are in accordance with treaty stipulations. The minister of
the United States further observes that if the treaty of 1888 had been
approved by the Government of China the questions now mooted would not
have arisen, and the danger of the policy adopted was pointed out by him
at the time.
Several months have elapsed, but the prince and ministers have received
no intimation from the minister of the United States whether he has or
not received a reply from the honorable Secretary of State. Frequent
representations have been made by Chinese resident in America that the
rule under the new law in regard to getting certificates is oppressive.
In New York the police have arrested at their pleasure Chinese wdio have
not obtained certificates. The Chinese minister to the United States has
laid the matter before the yamên by note and the yamên must lose no time
in devising a plan of action.
With reference to the limitation of Chinese laborers there is a special
treaty governing the question. The minister of the United States states
that laborers of other countries are not liable to such punishments
[which] may be true; but the United States have no treaty similar to the
treaty of 1880 with any other power.
The yamen would observe that when the supplemental treaty of 1880 was
negotiated the commission appointed by China to negotiate the same
inquired of the United States commissioners that on the framing of the
treaty whether the United States would or would not impose or inflict
oppressive measures on the Chinese laborers, and after the return to the
United States of the American commissioners this statement of the
Chinese commissioners appeared in the Foreign Relations of Congress (?).
This treaty was concluded in an amiable and peaceful spirit and the two
governments concerned were animated by the desire of pursuing perpetual
friendly relations.
The second article of the treaty reads as follows:
“Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers,
students, merchants, or from curiosity, together with their body and
household servants, and Chinese laborers, who are now in the United
States, shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and
accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities,
and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the
most favored nation.”
If the statement of the minister of the United States “that laborers of
other countries are not liable to such punishment,” is to be taken, then
was not the expression in the treaty of 1880, “accorded all the rights,
etc., which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most
favored nation,” an empty and vacant insertion? If the two countries,
China and the United States, are only and specially to be considered,
what was the use of inserting the favored-nation clause?
The third article of the supplemental treaty reads: “If Chinese laborers,
or Chinese of any other class now either permanently or temporarily
residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill-treatment
at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States
will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and to
secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions as
may be enjoyed by the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation
and to which they are entitled by treaty.”
Here is a repetition in this clause that Chinese [subjects] shall receive
the same treatment as those of the most favored nation. As the rules of
action in the matter of certificates under the new act can not apply to
other countries, then they can not apply to Chinese subjects.
The minister of the United States takes the supplemental treaty between
the United States and China of 1880, and cites that as the authority why
the Chinese laborer only should receive such harsh and unfair treatment.
It seems this was not formerly the intent when the treaty was framed;
neither is it in accordance with the wording thereof.
The minister of the United States further remarks that “it (a
certificate) is something like the passport and travel-certificate
system prevailing in China.” This view the yamên really do not
understand. With regard to foreigners resident in China applying for
passports, these documents are either applied for by the foreign
minister or consul, by an official communication (to Chinese
authorities), and each receives the same treatment. The police
authorities have never compelled persons to take out passports, nor is
there any such thing as punishment by imprisonment. Further, the object
and purpose of foreigners getting passports are specially for
[Page 138]
traveling in the interior. At
the treaty ports, however, foreigners may go and come at their pleasure
without these documents.
Generally speaking there is no nation that is pleased with having the
name of violating treaty stipulations. Every confidence has long been
reposed in the sincerity of purpose, integrity, and high standing of the
Government of the United States, and it has always evinced the
staunchest feeling of friendship toward China. The minister of the
United States has resided in China many years and the relations between
him and the yamên have always been above suspicion. But at present the
Chinese resident in the United States are molested and persecuted to an
unsurpassed extent, and the yamên hopes that the minister of the United
States will address and urge the Secretary of State to bring the matter
before Congress to have abrogated the new law of 1892, regarding the
issuance of certificates, thus maintaining and preserving the friendly
relations between the two nations, which is the earnest desire of the
yamen.
As to what rules maybe arranged for the future, the yamên have addressed
the governor-general of the Liang Kuang to ascertain the views of the
Chinese merchants of Canton and Hongkong, and, on a report having been
received, the question will then be considered.
A necessary communication, etc.
