I also inclose herewith the copy of a note which I have received from Lord
Rosebery in reply.
[Inclosure 1 in No. 815.]
Mr. White to Lord
Rosebery.
Legation of the United States,
London
,
October 20,
1892
.
My Lord: I have the honor to inclose herewith
copies of correspondence which has recently taken place between the
Secretary of State and Her Majesty’s chargé d’affaires at Washington,
relative to the alleged action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company
in transporting Chinese persons into the United States in violation of
existing law.
It will be observed that Mr. Foster, in his note of August 10 last, to
Mr. Herbert, presented the matter as it was then understood at the
Department of State, and referred to the ineffectual negotiations which
this legation was charged to enter into, pursuant to instructions from
the Secretary of State, in October, 1890, based upon the concurrent
resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States, inviting negotiations with Great Britain with a view to securing
treaty stipulations for the prevention of the entry of Chinese laborers
from the Dominion of Canada, contrary to our laws.
Mr. Herbert’s note of September 29, in reply, disclaims any act on the
part of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company violative of our statutes
respecting the introduction of Chinese persons, and, with reference to
Mr. Foster’s intimation that the action complained of seemed to show an
indifference or lack of friendliness on the part of the Canadian
government, he observes that, while the Canadian government is entirely
friendly to the United States in such matters, it does not charge itself
with executing or enforcing our laws.
[Page 237]
To this note Mr. Foster replied on the 3d instant, expressing his
gratification at the denial of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and
saying that if the reply of the government of Canada had communicated,
with friendly acquiescence, the sentiments and purposes of the railway
authorities, the purport of which had previously been made known to him,
his acknowledgment thereof would have been an agreeable duty. After
commenting upon the statements of the Canadian privy council, Mr. Foster
refers to the friendly and neighborly interests that prompted the treaty
proposal of October, 1890, which I had the honor to lay before Lord
Salisbury in an interview with his lordship on the 5th November, 1890,
and substantiates his statements touching the indifference with which it
had been treated by Canada.
On the 4th instant Mr. Foster received Mr Herbert’s note, dated the 2d,
supplementing that of September 29 last, by communicating a copy of an
approved, minute of the Canadian privy council further relating to the
alleged action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; and he replied
thereto on the 4th instant, expressing his pleasure at the character of
the communications of the vice-president of that railway company, which
fully bears out Mr. Foster’s understanding of the favorable disposition
of the company and of its desire to respect our laws by taking all
necessary precautions to prevent the unlawful introduction of Chinese
into the United States.
I have the honor to acquaint your lordship that I am instructed by my
Government to communicate the inclosed correspondence to your lordship
and to inquire whether the declarations of the government of Canada, as
conveyed in Mr. Herbert’s note of the 29th ultimo, that “the government
of the Dominion does not charge itself with the duty of enforcing
measures of restriction adopted by a foreign government with regard to
access to its territories by persons of other nationalities,” are to be
taken as a declination by Her Majesty’s Government of the overture of my
Government for a treaty regulating the border emigration of Chinese
persons inhibited by our laws.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 815.]
Lord Rosebery to
Mr. White.
Foreign
Office
,
October 28,
1892
.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your note of the 20th instant, forwarding copies of
correspondence which has recently taken place between the Secretary of
State and Her Majesty’s chargé d’affaires at Washington, relative to the
alleged action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in transporting
Chinese subjects into the United States in violation of existing
laws.
The question raised in your note will receive due consideration, and I
shall have the honor of addressing you a further communication on the
subject.
I have, etc.,
