Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 3, 1901
Mr. Wu to Mr. Hay.
Washington, December 9, 1901.
Sir: The President having signified to me in the private audience with which he honored me the other day his desire that I should furnish him with certain specific cases of injustice and hardship suffered by the subjects of China by reason of the rigid enforcement of the Chinese exclusion laws, I have the honor to inclose a memorandum which I have prepared for this purpose and to request that you will kindly lay it before the President for his consideration and for such action as he may deem proper.
Accept, etc.,
memorandum.
Attorney-General Griggs, in an opinion addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated the 15th of July, 1898, says:
“It maybe stated, comprehensively, that the result of the whole body of these laws and decisions thereon is to determine that the true theory is not that all Chinese persons may enter this country who are not forbidden, but that only those are entitled to enter who are expressly allowed.”
In pursuance of this opinion, the Treasury Department issued instructions to collectors of customs in the following terms:
“Collectors of customs are directed to admit only Chinese whose occupation or station clearly indicates that they are members of the exempt class of Chinese named in Article III of the treaty with China, viz, ‘Chinese subjects, being officials, teachers, students, merchants, or travelers for curiosity or pleasure,’ and to deny admission to Chinese persons described as salesmen, clerks, buyers, bookkeepers, accountants, managers, storekeepers, apprentices, agents, cashiers, physicians, proprietors of restaurants, etc.”
To deny admission to other classes of Chinese than laborers is clearly contrary to the letter and spirit of the laws and treaties respecting the immigration of Chinese to the United States and to the uninterrupted practice of the Executive Departments of the United States for a period of sixteen years from 1882 to 1898.
Since the issuance of the instructions by the Treasury Department, in pursuance of Attorney-General Griggs’s opinion above referred to, the rights of even the so-called exempt classes of Chinese have been constantly ignored and denied by officers of the United States Government charged with the execution of the laws, as may be seen in the following cases:
Case I.
Mr. Lew Yuk Lin, acting consul-general of China at Singapore, in the Straits Settlements, and Commander Chen En Tao, naval attaché to the Chinese legation at London, were proceeding via Vancouver, Montreal, and New York to London, England, on the business of the Imperial Government. They arrived at Malone, N. Y., on the evening of December 26, 1899, and were met on the train by Mr. J. Gibbs and Mr. F. G. Shufelt, deputy collectors at Malone. These officers informed them that they had received telegraphic instructions from the collector at Plattsburg, N. Y., to detain them at Malone until instructions could be obtained from the Treasury Department at Washington. The two Chinese officials endeavored to satisfy the deputy collectors of their status as officials of the Chinese Government by exhibiting to them their credentials and, in addition, certificates issued to them by the British authorities at Hongkong and Shanghai, and by the United States consul-general at Hongkong, showing conclusively their official character and their right to exemption from the operation of the exclusion laws. To their great surprise and in spite of their protest, [Page 73] the deputy collectors insisted upon detaining them, and they were forced to get off the train and pass the night in a hotel. For over twenty-four hours they were kept under surveillance and were not allowed to continue their journey until remonstrance had been made by this legation and telegraphic instructions received from Washington. Even then no satisfaction was tendered them for the inconvenience and extra expense they had been thus put to by reason of their detention and for the great humiliation and indignity to which they had been subjected.
Case II.
Fei Chi Ho and Kung Hsiang Hsi, two Chinese students, arrived at San Francisco September 12, 1901, by the steamer Doric, in the charge of Miss Luella Miner, a teacher in the North China College of the American Board of Foreign Missions at Tungchow, near Peking. They had passports certifying to their status as students, issued by Earl Li Hung Chang, viceroy of the province of Chihli, and viséd by Mr. Ragsdale, United States consul at Tientsin. According to Miss Miner’s statement, Fei Chi Ho studied first in the primary schools and then for eight years in the North China College and Academy, where he graduated in May, 1898. From that time until the Boxer outbreak in the summer of 1900, he taught in the Boys’ Boarding Schools at Taiku and Fenchow, in the province of Shansi. Kung Hsiang Hsi is a native of Taiku, in Shansi, and studied many years in the mission school there. In 1896 he entered the North China College and Academy, and had completed the junior year when he returned to his home in Shansi in June, 1900, expecting to return and finish his college course the following year. Both these young men were in Shansi at the time of the general outbreak against foreigners in that province, and were conspicuous for their devotion and faithfulness to their American friends, whom they refused to desert, though for weeks they were repeatedly surrounded by Boxer mobs. When the last of the missionary bands was killed on August 14, 1900, Fei Chi Ho escaped, and, after unspeakable hardships, made his way to Tientsin, bringing the first authentic tidings of the fate that had befallen the Shansi missionaries. His father, mother, and other relatives were killed by the Boxers. The other young man, Kung Hsiang Hsi, was intrusted by the two American ladies, Miss Bird and Miss Partridge, a few days before their death, with letters to their friends. These he concealed for twelve months, at the risk of his life, before it was possible for him to carry them over the borders of the province of Shansi. He had with him also a few articles from the personal effects of Miss Bird for her mother.
To these young men the collector of customs at San Francisco refused admission on the ground that their passports were not in proper form. The entreaties of Miss Miner and the intercession of the Chinese consul-general at San Francisco in their behalf were of no avail. They were ordered to be deported. The case was appealed to the Treasury Department, which confirmed the decision of the collector. As they were in imminent danger of being sent back to China, it was arranged, at the last moment, through the intercession of an influential friend, that the young men should be permitted to land on the bond of the Chinese consul-general at San Francisco, pending their sending to China for the proper certificates.
Case III.
Tong Tseng,a a boy 15 years old, arrived at Honolulu, by the steamer Gaelic, on October 21, 1901, bearing a proper certificate, issued by the British authorities at Hongkong and viséd by the United States consul-general at that port. His application for admission was rejected by the collector of customs at Honolulu, not because of any defect in his certificate or any doubt as to his character as student, but because when questioned he answered that the purpose of his coming to Honolulu was to pursue his studies at the Chinese-American school. His friends and the American principal of the school exerted themselves in his behalf, and offered to give a guaranty or bond for the good faith of the boy, but their offer was refused by the collector, who stated that his instructions from the Treasury Department were that only those Chinese who intend to pursue some of the higher branches of study or prepare themselves for some particular profession could be admitted.
Case IV.
Yee Ah Lum and some thirty Chinese merchants of Canton came to the United States in August, 1899, for the purpose of buying American goods. Their applications [Page 74] for admission into the country were rejected by the collector of customs at San Francisco on the ground that their certificates were defective. The alleged defect was simply the omission of the particulars respecting the nature and character of their business in the English portion of the certificates, though such particulars were plainly stated in the Chinese portion. Thereupon Yee Ah Lum and the other Chinese merchants appealed to the Secretary of the Treasury, but the Secretary sustained the decision of the collector. They were accordingly deported. It was afterwards learned that they went to Europe to make their purchases.
Case V.
Tom Kem Poy and Wong Sun Chune were two Chinese merchants who had been in business a number of years at Mazatlan, Mexico, as members of the firm of Simon Ley & Co. Armed with certificates from the Mexican Government, properly viséed by the American consul at the port of departure, and also with a certificate from the registrar of commerce of Mazatlan showing that they were merchants of good standing, they came to Los Angeles, Cal., in February, 1899. On their arrival the Chinese inspector arrested them, and threw them in jail, because, as he testified at the preliminary examination of these men, he had felt their hands, and therefore knew that they were not merchants. They were in jail from February 6 to June 1, when their attorney wrote to this legation, and in all probability had to remain there to the day of their deportation, which was not ordered till August. Thus they were kept in jail for seven months for no crime or fault whatever.
Case VI.
Lei Yok,a a member of the Chinese firm of Tuck Chung Yuen, of Habana, Cuba, left that port on the 11th of November, 1898, by the steamer Whitney for New Orleans with the intention of proceeding to San Francisco, where he had an interest in the firm of Tai Seng Tong, doing business at 929 Dupont street, San Francisco. Upon his arrival at New Orleans the customs authorities refused to let him continue his journey. His passport was in due form, issued by the Chinese consul-general at Habana, and viséed by the British consul acting in behalf of the United States Government as well as by the Spanish governor of the province at that time. His detention was due to a new regulation of the Treasury Department, issued in pursuance of an opinion of the Acting Attorney-General, withdrawing the official recognition up to that time accorded to Chinese consular certificates.
Case VII.
Ho Mun, a native of the Portuguese city of Macao, born of Chinese parentage and a merchant of good standing, arrived at San Francisco by the steamer Coptic on September 17, 1899, and applied for admission to the United States by presenting a certificate issued by the proper Portuguese authorities at Macao and viséed by the United States consul-general at Hongkong. His application was rejected on the ground that his certificate failed to state the length of time for which he was engaged as a merchant in Macao before his departure for the United States. Accordingly, he was removed to a place of detention on the steamship company’s dock in the custody of the customs authorities to await orders for his deportation. Almost immediately afterwards he fell sick. Every effort was made by his friends and relatives to give him the necessary medical care and attention, but the customs authorities and particularly Inspector Dunn, who was in charge of the Chinese bureau, refused all entreaties that a regular physician should be allowed to examine and attend the sick man. For two months Ho Mun remained in the place of detention, and his condition grew worse and worse from day to day. As a last resort, an application was made to the district court of the United States in and for the northern district of California for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted on the 16th of November, 1899, and Ho Mun was taken from the custody of the custom authorities, and removed to the county jail, where he died on the 21st of November.
The foregoing are typical cases taken from a large number. They serve to show the nature of the hardships entailed upon even the members of the exempt classes of Chinese by the harsh enforcement of the exclusion laws. These certainly do not seek the American shore for the purpose of wresting the daily bread from the mouths of American wage earners, but for the purpose of promoting a friendly understanding [Page 75] and improving the commercial relations between the two countries. It is true that instances of fraudulent attempts to enter the country are not wanting. But innocent Chinese who have every right to come to the United States should not be treated as suspicious characters and sent back to China as lawbreakers on the least pretext.
- Complete report of this case printed, p. 68.↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1899, p. 200.↩