I think you will find that the statements in Secretary Carlisle’s letter
fully cover the matters to which you directed my attention.
[Inclosure.]
Mr. Carlisle to
Mr. Gresham.
Treasury Department,
Washington, D. C., October 20, 1893. (Received October
21.)
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your communication of the 16th instant, with which was
inclosed copy of a note addressed you on the 10th instant by the
Chinese minister at this capital, concerning certain regulations of
this Department with reference to certificates issued by Chinese
consuls and upon which the holders seek admission into the United
States.
The complaint of the minister presumably has reference to
instructions given to collectors of customs to closely scrutinize
certificates from consular officers presented by Chinese persons
claiming to be of the exempt class, and before landing such persons
to make inquiry as to the truth of the statements set forth in such
certificates.
This course became necessary on account of the frequency of instances
coming to the knowledge of this Department where Chinese laborers
had been admitted upon certificates obtained from the Chinese consul
at Havana falsely describing them as merchants, actors, or students.
The law relating to certificates of this character does not make
them conclusive evidence of the right of the holder to enter the
United States, but provides that the facts therein stated may be
disproved by the United States authorities. Pursuant to this
provision of law and in order to prevent the constant introduction
of laborers by means of consular certificates probably obtained from
Chinese consul and viséed by the U. S. consul through
misrepresentation and perjured testimony, it was decided to verify
all certificates where there was any doubt of the true character of
the person described therein.
[Page 262]
Although the law provides in express terms that Chinese laborers
shall not be permitted to enter the United States, our Government in
a spirit of liberality has allowed such persons to pass in transit
through our territory. This privilege has been taken advantage of by
many Chinese laborers to enter at San Francisco and pass in transit
via New Orleans to Cuba. The same persons have then returned to the
United States with passports from the Chinese consul at Havana
certifying them to be persons of the exempt class. A number of these
upon investigation have been excluded. While this action causes more
or less delay, it has not, so far as is known, prevented the entry
into the United States of any person lawfully entitled to
admission.
As an illustration, it may be stated that on the 12th instant two
Chinese persons, named, respectively Loui Yon Cai and Lung Wa On,
arrived at New York per steamship Seneca, and
claimed admission on certificates issued by the Chinese consul at
Havana, who certified that the persons referred to were members,
respectively, of the Chinese firms of Cheung Wa, No. 909 Race
street, Philadelphia, and Yan Sang Tong, No. 22 Mott street, New
York. Upon investigation it was ascertained that they were not
merchants nor members of the firms named. It was shown that Loui Yon
Cai had stated on the voyage from Havana to New York that it was his
intention upon landing to establish a Chinese restaurant or a
gambling house in that city, and that he had no business connection
of any kind in Philadelphia. The other person, Lung Wa On, was
without means, was a laborer, and intended to work in a laundry at
New York upon arrival there. In these cases certificates were
obtained in Havana by one Young Sing and one Chuck Sam upon payment
of the sums of $12 and $7, respectively.
You will recall the fact that I have within the past few months, on
account of abuses similar to those above described, repeatedly
called your attention to the necessity for instructions to the
American consul at Havana to more closely scrutinize certificates of
the character in question, with a view of ascertaining whether or
not the statements made therein are true.
I am not aware of any instances where action has been taken by
direction of this Department, or any of its officers charged with
the enforcement of the Chinese exclusion acts, which can properly be
construed as indicating a disposition to ignore certificates issued
by the accredited officers of the Chinese Government, but, as
hereinbefore stated, efforts have been and will continue to be made
to prevent our laws relating to the exclusion of Chinese being
violated by fraudulent practices on the part of persons who have no
fight to land in the United States.
I do not doubt that the Chinese minister will concede that this
course is a proper one, as I am advised that he has no sympathy with
attempts of Chinese persons to enter the United States in violation
of our laws.
With reference to that portion of the minister’s note complaining of
the conduct of Inspector Scharf, I have the honor to inform you that
previous to the receipt of your letter and upon representations made
from another source an investigation was ordered. The subject is now
under consideration, and if it is found that the inspector has been
abusive or has not properly performed his official duties a suitable
remedy will be applied.
Respectfully, yours, etc.,
J. G. Carlisle,
Secretary.
