Mr. Tsui to Mr. Foster.
Washington, D. C., November 7, 1892. (Received November 7.)
Sir: In compliance with instructions from the Imperial Government, and also in answer to the prayers of numerous petitions received from Chinese residents of the United States, it again becomes my duty to call your attention and the attention of the President of the United States to the unjust, unfair, and discriminating legislation of the Congress against my countrymen, which has been enacted regardless of their vested rights and in violation of the solemn treaty stipulations now in force between the Imperial Chinese Government and the Government of the United States.
In my communication to your predecessor of March 26, 1890 (in which I referred to communications of my predecessor of January 26, 1889, and July 8, 1889, upon the same subject), there was a full discussion of the provisions of the act of Congress approved October 1, 1888, and to which reference is now made, with the request that the argument and presentation of the question therein may be read and considered as a part of this note.
On October 1, 1890, not having heard from your predecessor in response to my note of March 20, 1890, I was impelled by an urgent sense of duty to transmit another note to the Department of State requesting attention to former communications, and asking that I might be favored as promptly as possible with the views and intentions of the Government of the United States in regard to the difficulties which had then unhappily arisen, and which still continue to exist between our nations.
On the 6th day of the same month, Mr. Secretary Blaine replied in a most courteous note, explaining the delay, etc. and then said: “The questions which you present have been, and now are, the subject of careful consideration on the part of the Government, and I hope to be able at an early day to convey to you the views of the President in an ample and formal manner.”
The promised views and intentions of the President had not been received on December 4, 1890, and I again addressed the Department of State upon the subject, and set forth in my note of that date the objections of my Government to the act of Congress approved October 1, 1888, and the desire of the tsung-li yamên that it should have been repealed before the adjournment of Congress, or modified in such manner as to avoid the hardships that would befall my countrymen by its enforcement, and preserve with honor to both nations the treaty stipulations so solemnly entered into between them; and that my Government had been greatly disappointed to learn of the adjournment of Congress without any action whatever. I also stated in a general way the effect of the law upon the business interests of my countrymen who were, most of them, innocently and without any knowledge of the existence of such a law, brought within its unjust provisions.
Other notes were transmitted to the Department of State upon the same subject, and when I had occasion to make personal calls at the Department, I reminded the Secretary of State of the fact that I had not received the promised communication expressing in a formal manner the views and intentions of the President in relation to the exclusion legislation of Congress of October 1, 1888. The promised views and intentions of the President had not been received when Congress [Page 152] again convened in December, 1891, and numerous bills were introduced in both Houses of Congress upon the subject of the exclusion of the Chinese from the United States. It may not be out of place to remark here that the object of the introduction of these bills is well understood in both China and the United States.
On April 11, 1892, in the absence of the Secretary of State, I called on Assistant Secretary Wharton and informed him that I had received a cablegram from the tsung-li yamên in regard to the passage by the House of Representatives of what was known as the Geary bill, which was harsher and more objectionable in its terms than any bill that had previously passed either House of Congress, and violated in my opinion every important provision of the treaty of 1880. The substance of the cablegram was communicated to Mr. Wharton, who, in answer to my inquiry as to what course I should adopt, advised me to send a note to the Department setting forth the views of the Imperial Government, and he stated that a copy of such note would be transmitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, the committee that would then have the House bill under consideration.
On the next day, April 12, 1892, I presented and filed in the Department of State such a statement as was suggested by Mr. Wharton, in which will be found the objections of my government to the bill, and cogent reasons against its enactment into a law.
On April 21, 1892, I advised the Department of State of the receipt of a second cablegram from the tsung-li yamên upon the same subject, in which I was instructed to urge upon the Secretary of State the importance to both governments of the innervation of the existing treaty stipulations, which the pending legislation threatened to destroy, and repeated my earnest desire that the Secretary of State would do everything in his power to avert the menaced violations of the treaties by the Congress of the United States.
But, notwithstanding my protests against the proposed legislation, on behalf of my Government, the Geary bill was amended by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and passed. The amended Senate bill was too liberal in its provisions for those who had proposed the legislation in the House, and when it reached that body the amendments were nonconcurred in, and conferees appointed. The conference committee reported the bill, which was approved May 5, 1892, but not unanimously, inasmuch as some of the ablest of that committee declined to agree to or to sign the report, and opposed its adoption by forcible arguments. The report of the conference committee was, however, adopted in both the Senate and House, and the bill transmitted to the President for his signature.
Under this alarming state of affairs I again addressed a note to the Department of State, renewing the protests and objections to the legislation, insisting that the treaties between the governments should be preserved, and asked the Secretary of State to lay before the President of the United States my most urgent protests for his consideration before he should act upon or give his approval to the bill. I respectfully refer you to said note for my views upon the effect of such legislation, and for a brief statement of the hardships imposed upon my countrymen in the United States by its unjust and personal provisions, which apply to them alone as a class of people, most of whom are legitimate residents of the United States, and entitled to the same protection, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as other residents therein of the most favored nations. But my protest, if considered by the President at all, was disregarded, and on May 5, 1892, the bill received his approval and became a law.
[Page 153]Subsequently to the approval of the act another note was sent to the Department, in which I again expressed my views upon this important question.
The above is a review of the correspondence between the Secretary of State and myself upon the subject now under consideration up to this date, and it scarcely necessary to remark that the same is decidedly one-sided.
I regret most sincerely that I am compelled to say, in a most friendly way, that the proceedings which led to this legislation, and the laws enacted in pursuance thereof, were not required by any existing emergency that had arisen between the two nations, and the harshness of the provisions of such laws, and the admitted violation of the existing treaties between the governments, were unjustifiable, and the course of Congress in this respect can not be justified by anything to be found in the status of China and the United States toward each other at the time.
The important observation may be made here that the haste in which bills relating to the exclusion of Chinese are rushed through Congress present a most deplorable aspect of the question now under discussion. The act of October 1, 1888, known as the Scott law was, I believe, passed without reference to committee, without debate, and without any sort of consideration whatever. At the last session of Congress each House hastily passed bills which crossed each other in the proceedings, and out of which the act approved May 5, 1892, was finally agreed upon in conference and enacted into a law. The Geary bill, which contained most obnoxious provisions, in connection with which there was a minority report in the House, was stricken out in the Senate and the Dolph bill substituted for it and passed, upon which a conference committee was appointed, and the result of their deliberations was the act approved May 5, 1892, as above stated.
In section 13 of the Geary bill, as it passed the House, will be found the following language:
Section 13. That immediately after the passage of this act the Secretary of the Treasury shall make such rules and regulations and prescribe the necessary forms to enable the Internal-Revenue Department of the Government to issue the certificates required hereby. Such certificates may be issued by the deputy commissioner of internal revenue nearest the place where such Chinese resides. The certificates shall contain a true photographic copy of the applicant, together with his name, age, local residence, and occupation, and a duplicate of the same shall be filed in the office of the commissioner of internal revenue of the district within which such Chinaman makes application.
The section of the act approved by the President May 5, 1892, is a modified one, and reads as follows:
Section 7. That immediately after the passage of this act the Secretary of the Treasury shall make such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the efficient execution of this act, and shall prescribe the necessary forms and furnish the necessary blanks to enable the collectors of internal revenue to issue the certificates required hereby, and make such provisions that certificates may be procured in localities convenient to the applicants. Such certificates shall be issued without charge to the applicant, and shall contain the name, age, local residence, and occupation of the applicant, and such other description of the applicant as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and a duplicate thereof shall be filed in the office of the collector of internal revenue for the district within which such Chinaman makes application.
It is conceded that the Imperial Government has not encouraged the emigration of its people from China to the United States, but, on the contrary, in the negotiations between the countries on the subject it has, in the most friendly manner, yielded to the suspension of emigration, [Page 154] and more friendly treatment was anticipated, therefore, than has been manifested by Congress in the enactment of laws prohibiting the coming of Chinese into the United States.
It was admitted in the debate at the last session of Congress that the passage of the Scott law in 1838 was a violation of the treaty stipulations between the two countries, and also that the passage of the act of May 5, 1892, was a second and more aggravated violation of the same.
For a proper characterization of the legislation by eminent statesmen you are respectfully referred to the debates found in the Congressional Record, first session. From these debates it will be seen that some of the most prominent members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations doubted the necessity of any legislation whatever in the last session of Congress, and were of the opinion that the provisions of the act of 1888 were extended to 1894.
I will also add that it was disclosed by these debates that the census shows a decrease in the number of Chinese in the State of California and in the United States, and there was, therefore, no actual reason or necessity for the passage of a law containing additional precautions and restraints against the coming of my countrymen into the United States.
I might with propriety protract this communication by placing before you in detail the numerous hardships that will be entailed upon my people in the United States if the law is allowed to remain unchanged, and if the rules and regulations prescribed by the Treasury Department are sustained and enforced; but these matters are apparent, and will be fully understood by a casual reference to them.
The provisions of the act of May 5, 1892, I am informed, contravene the Constitution of the United States; it is admitted they violate the treaties between China and the United States. Grave questions as to the constitutionality of the act will arise, therefore, for consideration, but inasmuch as these are questions to be presented to another and coordinate branch of your Government I shall not discuss them in this communication, and this reference is made to the subject for the purpose of leading up to the presentation of an important departure in the legislation of the Congress of the United States. This departure is found in section 6 of the act. The crime defined in this section and the punishment prescribed are plainly ex post facto, notwithstanding the law has been ingeniously framed with the intention of avoiding its repugnance to the Constitution, But I desire to direct attention more especially to the fact that the Congress has prescribed as a punishment for the noncompliance with the law what is equivalent to banishment from the United States; and I wish to emphasize the fact that this punishment is applicable only to my countrymen. It was surprising to the Imperial Government to find engrafted in the law of the United States any such penalty, especially so when it has been proclaimed throughout the world for over one hundred years that the United States was an asylum for the people of all the nations of the earth. In my surprise I naturally exclaim, is this a step backward from progress, civilization, freedom, and liberty? I cannot find words to express my regret or the regret of the Imperial Government at the enactment of such a law, which is applied solely and personally to the Chinese, a large majority of whom are unquestionably lawfully within the United States, engaged in the legitimate pursuits of life, and entitled to the protection of the Constitution and laws, instead of the imposition of such punishment as it is attemped to inflict upon them by the last Congress; and the surprise must be greatly enhanced [Page 155] when it is considered that such obnoxious and unenlightened punishment is an unwelcome salute from one friendly and favored nation to another, which has at all times and under all circumstances made amity, honesty of intentions and purposes, and the sacred preservation of its treaty stipulations the chief object in its relations with the United States Government. For these reasons, and others heretofore adduced, the statute of 1892 is a violation of every principle of justice, equity, reason, and fair dealing between two friendly powers, and its enforcement should not only be arrested, but the law itself should be summarily repealed, or so altered as to assure my countrymen of the full protection of their rights and immunities, in the same measure that these privileges are secured to the people of other favored nations who are in any manner residing within the boundaries of the United States.
In accordance with what has already been stated, I would most respectfully suggest that the two nations might be relieved of the pending embarrassments which are the immediate result of the legislation so frequently referred to in this note by a repeal of the objectionable provisions of the act of May 5, 1892, or such alteration of the same as will protect my countrymen in their vested personal and property rights in the United States, so that they may continue to remain in said country free from the threatened difficulties, wrongs, and the deprivation of such rights and privileges.
In consideration, therefore, of the past friendship between the respective nations, and in the hope of preserving the same and uniting them more firmly therein, I again communicate to you the respectful request of the Imperial Government, that the matters which form the basis of this and my former notes may receive your early attention, and that the views and intentions of your Government may be elicited and made known to me in an “ample and formal manner.”
I again renew, etc.,