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.

Chinese Legation,
Washington, December 10, 1901.

No. 219.]

Sir: In view of the fact that the law of the Congress of the United States which went into force May 6, 1882, based upon the treaty of 1880 between China and the United States, regulating Chinese immigration, and which was reenacted May 5, 1892, for ten years, is about to expire by limitation, and as the treaty now in force relating to Chinese immigration will terminate in 1904, I have been instructed by the Imperial Chinese Government to bring the subject of this law and the treaties to the attention of the United States, and to urge an adjustment of the questions involved more in harmony with the friendly relations of the two Governments and with the interests of their respective peoples.

The treaty of 1880 (Article IV) provides that if the laws of the Congress of the United States to carry out the treaty “are found to work hardship upon the subjects of China, the Chinese minister at Washington may bring the matter to the notice of the Secretary of State of the United States, who will consider the subject with him * * * to the end that mutual and unqualified benefit may result.” The matter which now presses itself upon our consideration is whether the laws now in force “are found to work hardship upon the subjects of China,” and whether they ought to be renewed or modified by the Congress. As the subject is one of the utmost importance to my Government and my people, I must entreat your patience while I attempt to review it at some length and in detail. In doing so it will be necessary to repeat some of the facts and arguments which have already been submitted to you, in order that a full and connected presentation of the subject may be made for the consideration of the legislative branch of your Government, and I respectfully request that a copy of this note be transmitted to the honorable Congress.

In seeking to discharge this duty I shall ask your attention, first, to the diplomatic history of the treaties upon which the laws of the Congress are based; second, to an inquiry somewhat in detail whether these laws have worked hardships to the subjects of China; third, whether they have proved to be for the best interests of the United States in an economic aspect and in its commercial relations with China; and, fourth, whether, in view of their early expiration, they should be reenacted; and, if so, to what extent of territory they should be applied and what modifications are called for by experience in their enforcement.

i.—diplomatic history of the chinese immigration treaties.

In 1868 the governments of China and the United States celebrated a treaty which guaranteed to the Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States the same privileges, immunities, and exemptions as were enjoyed by the citizens of the most favored nation. It was a treaty negotiated by the great American statesman, Secretary Seward. It was announced by the President of the United States to Congress to be a “liberal and auspicious treaty” (Dip. Cor. U. S., 1868, p. 16), and it was welcomed by the people of the United States as a great advance in their international relations. It also has the double significance of having been negotiated by a Chinese special embassy, of which a distinguished American diplomat, Hon. Anson Burlingame, was the head, and who was familiar with the wishes and interests of the American people.

Some delay was occasioned in its ratification by the Chinese Government, and upon the advent of a new President, General Grant, his Secretary of State, Mr. Fish, manifested a marked zeal and anxiety to secure its ratification, with a full knowledge on the part of the Government that it was to secure the free entrance of Chinese laborers into the United States, whose coming by “thousands” he welcomed. In urging the minister of the United States to hasten final and favorable action, he wrote: “Already they (the Chinese immigrants) have crossed the great mountains and are beginning to be found in the interior of the continent. By their assiduity, patience, and fidelity, and by their intelligence, they earn the good will and confidence of those that employ them. We have good reason to think that this thing will continue and increase.” (Wharton’s International Digest, I, p. 457.)

Under such circumstances the Imperial Chinese Government was pleased to meet the wishes of the Government of the United States, and it put the treaty into full force and operation with the expectation that it would be the means of unrestricted commercial and industrial intercourse and a bond of union and friendship between the two great peoples for many generations to come. But within a few years the labor unions on the Pacific coast began to object to the coming of Chinese laborers to that region to compete with them. Soon afterwards the Chinese Government was surprised to be informed that the President of the United States had delegated a commission of its citizens to go to Pekin and solicit an abrogation of the treaty clause, to which reference has been made. Although the Imperial Government was resolutely opposed to its abrogation, it received the American commission with all the respect due to their Government and to their high station, and listened patiently to their representations. The commissioners admitted that the treaty of 1868 gave the Chinese the absolute unrestricted right of immigration to the United States in any numbers, but they represented that the conditions had so changed since the treaty was negotiated, or that its operation had been so unexpected in its results, that the interests of the American people demanded that the treaty clause in question should be annulled.

The Chinese Government was still unwilling to abrogate a treaty which had been urged with so much zeal by the United States and which had so lately been entered upon on both sides with such high hopes. Thereupon the commissioners proposed that in view of the disturbances created in the United States by the operation of the treaty, permission be given the Government of the United States, in its discretion, “to limit, suspend, or prohibit” the immigration of Chinese laborers. To this proposition the Chinese Government objected as a virtual abrogation of the treaty, but it did indicate a disposition to intrust to the Government of the United States the power “to regulate, limit, or suspend” such immigration, if the power to “prohibit” was stricken out, and if assurance could be given by the commissioners that the discretion to be granted to the United States would be judiciously and reasonably exercised.

The American commissioners accepted the proposal of the Chinese Government as fair and adapted to the situation of affairs, and they proceeded to give the assurance requested by the Chinese Government in the following terms:

It would be as difficult to say what would be the special character of any act of Congress as it would be to say what would be the words of an edict of the Emperor of China to execute a treaty power. That the great nations discussing such a subject must always assume that they will both act in good faith and with due consideration for the interests and friendship of each other. That the United States Government might never deem it necessary to exercise this power. It would depend upon circumstances. If Chinese immigration concentrated in cities where it threatened public order, or if it confined itself to localities where it was an injury to the interests of the American people, the Government of the United States would undoubtedly take steps to prevent such accumulations of Chinese. If, on the contrary, there was no large immigration, or if there were sections of the country where such immigration was clearly beneficial, then the legislation of the United States under this power would be adapted to such circumstances. For example, there might be a demand for Chinese labor in the South and a surplus of such labor in California, and Congress might legislate in accordance with these facts. In general, the legislation would be in view of and depend upon the circumstances of the situation at the moment such legislation became necessary. * * * They further remarked that they were satisfied that if any special legislation worked unanticipated hardships the Government of the United States would listen in the most just and friendly spirit to the representations of the Chinese Government through their minister in Washington. (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1881, p. 185.)

These assurances were accepted by the Chinese Government as satisfactory and, at its request, they were reduced to writing. That Government was not, however, satisfied that the word “prohibit” should be merely stricken out of the treaty draft prepared by the American commissioners; but to the words “regulate, limit, or suspend” it required that there should be added the words “but not absolutely prohibit it” (Chinese immigration). The further words were also added, “the limitation or suspension shall be reasonable.” By such friendly explanations and language was it sought to make clear what was the intent and scope of the new and amended treaty.

A further incident of this negotiation is proper to be noted. In the American project of the treaty it was provided that “the words ‘Chinese laborers’ are herein used to signify all immigrations other than that for teaching, trade, travel, study, and curiosity.” Such a clause would have excluded from the United States a large class of Chinese not enumerated, and it was wisely stricken out and not included in the treaty as accepted.

In transmitting the immigration treaty of 1880, as finally adopted, to the Secretary of State, the commissioners say:

We are satisfied that in yielding to the request of the United States they (the Chinese negotiators) have been actuated by a sincere friendship and an honorable confidence that the large powers as recognized by them as belonging to the United States, and bearing directly upon their own people, will be exercised by our Government with a wise discretion, in a spirit of reciprocal and sincere friendship, and with entire justice. (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1881, pp. 171–198.)

It would seem reasonable to expect that in yielding so fully to the wishes of the United States in this second negotiation, the Chinese Government would not again be called upon for further concessions in the interest of and at the demand of the labor unions on the Pacific coast, but such was not the case.

Within a period of less than ten years an urgent application was made by the Secretary of State for a new treaty amendment so as to enable the Congress of the United States to still further restrict the privileges of the Chinese laborers who had come to the United States under the solemn pledge of treaty guaranties. And when the Chinese Government hesitated to consent to the withdrawal of rights granted by the United States to the subjects of all other Governments the Congress of the United States passed the Scott Act of 1888, in plain violation of the treaty. In order to save the Executive of the United States from embarrassment, the Chinese Government, contrary to its own sense of justice and of international comity, for a third time yielded to the wishes of the United States, and celebrated with it the amended treaty of 1894, which gave to Congress additional power of legislation respecting Chinese laborers.

How far Congress has complied with the letter and spirit of the treaties and of the assurances given by the American commissioners who went to Pekin, may be seen by an examination of the various laws which have been passed ostensibly to carry out the stipulations of the treaties, and the rulings of the Departments in the enforcement of these laws. They have been made the subject of many communications of this legation to you, Mr. Secretary, and the archives of your Department will show how futile have been the representations of the Chinese Government.

I beg to inclose for reference a copy of the treaty^a of 1868 and also one of the treaty^a of 1880. (See inclosures, Nos. 1 and 2.)

ii.—have the laws of congress worked hardships to the subjects of china?

I have shown that when the Chinese plenipotentiaries were induced to agree to the exclusion of Chinese laborers from the United States the American commissioners held out the hope that possibly it might not be exercised at all, or, at most, under certain limitations and as to specified localities. But immediately after the treaty went into effect a law was passed making the exclusion of Chinese laborers complete as to the entire territory of the United States and without exception.

Let us now examine in some detail whether the assurance given by the American commissioners who negotiated the treaty of 1880 that the power to enact laws under the treaty would be “exercised with a wise discretion, in a spirit of reciprocal and sincere friendship, and with entire justice” has been realized.

It is an undeniable fact that the treaties of 1880 and 1894 had for their sole object the exclusion of Chinese laborers, but the laws and Treasury regulations have included in this category classes of skilled artisans and traders. Restrictions and definitions are thrown around the term “merchant,” “student,” and others not laborers, which, as I shall show, make it very difficult for these classes to enter the United States. The Treasury Department, in accordance with an opinion of the Attorney-General, excludes from the United States all persons who are not expressly described in Article III of the treaty of 1894. This action I claim to be in direct opposition to the treaties, to the laws of Congress, and to the whole history of the events which gave rise to them.

The preamble to the treaty of 1880 shows that it was entered into at the request of the United States, and the reason therefor is stated to be “because of the constantly increasing immigration of Chinese laborers.” In the first article authority is given to the Government of the United States whenever, in its opinion, “the coming of Chinese laborers * * * affects or threatens to affect the interests of that country, to regulate, limit, or suspend such coming or residence;” but it provides that “the limitation * * * shall apply only to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes being not included in the limitations.” Then follows in the next article the enumeration, which substantially appears in the treaty of 1894, as to “officials, teachers, students, merchants, or travelers for curiosity or pleasure.” The treaty of 1894, in its preamble, recites the object of the treaty of 1880 and gives as the reason for its amendment “the antagonism and much deprecated and serious disorders to which the presence of Chinese laborers has given rise.” Thereupon it amends Article I of the treaty of 1880, under which the immigration of Chinese laborers could be suspended, but not absolutely prohibited, by authorizing their absolute prohibition for ten years, and it amends Article II as to Chinese laborers, under which they were “allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord,” by restricting their return to the United States by the terms set forth in Article II of the new treaty. A provision not found in the treaty of 1880 is added as to registration of “Chinese laborers;” but in no other respects is the treaty of 1880 modified or affected by the treaty of 1894, except as already stated respecting the certificate to be given to Chinese subjects residing in foreign lands. It repeats in Article III the recital of “officials, teachers, students, merchants, or travelers for curiosity or pleasure,” but expressly states that their right of coming to the United States is under the status “at present enjoyed”—that is, under the treaty of 1880. In the Chinese text of Article II of the treaty of 1880 and of Article III of 1894 the words “officials, teachers, students, merchants, or travelers for curiosity or pleasure” are followed by the words “et cetera,” which clearly shows the intention of the negotiators and confirms my argument on this point.

Not only does the treaty and all the correspondence leading up to it show that the intention was to exclude Chinese laborers only, but the various laws of the Congress of the United States are in absolute confirmation of this intent. Section 6 of the acts of 1882 and 1884 refers to those who must produce the required certificate as “every Chinese person other than a laborer;” the penalty in section 2 of these acts imposed upon vessels only applied to the bringing of “Chinese laborers;” under the act of May 5, 1892, registration is only made obligatory as to “Chinese laborers;” and the act of October 1, 1888, known as the Scott Act, the most drastic legislation ever passed by Congress, was expressly limited to “Chinese laborers.” Under these acts it never was held by the United States authorities that admission of the exempt classes was confined to those only who are recited in Article II of the treaty of 1880, and the present exclusion can not justly be based upon the fact of the recital of Article III of the treaty of 1894, for the same recital appears in the treaty of 1880. The force and effect of the legislation of Congress is well stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in its opinion in the case of Wan Shing v. United States (140 U. S., 424–428) as follows:

The result of the legislation respecting the Chinese would seem to be this, that no laborers of that race shall hereafter be permitted to enter the United States, or even to return after having departed from the country, though they may have previously resided therein and have left with a view of returning; and that all other persons of that race, except those connected with the diplomatic service, must produce a certificate from the authorities of the Chinese Government, or of such other foreign Governments as they may at the time be subjects of, showing that they are not laborers, and have the permission of that Government to enter the United States, which certificate is to be viséed by a representative of the Government of the United States.

It thus appears by the declaration of this high tribunal that the only test to be applied to a Chinese seeking admission into the United States is whether or not he is a laborer. If the negative shall be established in the manner prescribed by the laws, to wit, by the production of the proper certificate, the person must be admitted.

The construction given to the law by the Supreme Court is that which was followed up to a recent period. The Secretary of the Treasury at that time, the Hon. John G. Carlisle, in the regulations of 1893, published for the enforcement of the laws of the United States respecting the Chinese, made the following declaration for the guidance of the officers of the United States:

No class of Chinese are prohibited from coming into the United States or remaining there, except such as may properly and within the meaning of said statutes be known as “laborers.” (See series 7, No. 18, U. S. Internal Revenue, 1893, p. 9.)

It is needless for me to say to you that Mr. Carlisle is not only a statesman intimately acquainted with the spirit and policy of his Government, but that he is one of the first lawyers of his country. After the treaty of 1894 went into effect—that is, in 1896—new regulations were issued from the Department of the Treasury, signed by the Acting Secretary, the Hon. Charles S. Hamlin, to whose Bureau Chinese matters specially belonged, and in which the declaration above quoted appears with this additional statement:

The persons referred to in the acts of Congress to which these regulations apply, and whose immigration into the United States is prohibited, are limited to Chinese laborers. (See regulations, 1896, p. 9.)

Thus it will be seen that from the passage of the first exclusion act in 1882 until July 15, 1898, when the opinion of the Attorney-General above referred to was given, for a period of sixteen years the prohibition to enter the United States was distinctly confined to Chinese laborers only, other classes not being included in the prohibition. But under the opinion of the Attorney-General none but those expressly enumerated in Article III of the treaty of 1894 are allowed admission into the United States. It is most unreasonable to suppose that such was the intent of the negotiators. Did they contemplate the admission of students and the exclusion of scholars, when there are such in China of the most eminent attainments, professors and philosophers, worthy to rank with the distinguished savants of America or Europe? Did they propose to admit merchants, however small their business, and reject bankers, of whom there are in China many possessed of millions, and turn away brokers or commercial agents, of whom there are not a few in China managing the business of the largest commercial houses and banking companies of Europeans? Was it probable that they should provide for the admission and residence in the United States of tens of thousands of Chinese laborers and prohibit the entrance of physicians to care for them? Would they stipulate for the coming without limit of mere travelers, however lowly, for curiosity, and refuse the stay of noblemen or men of high professional standing? To state these questions is to refute them.

Not only a large class of Chinese of education, high rank, and business standing have thus been excluded by a simple ruling of the Treasury Department, but such obstructions and conditions are by the Immigration Bureau thrown around the admission of those who are recognized as entitled to enter the United States as in many cases amount to a virtual nullification of the treaty. That convention expressly stipulates that students, without qualification, are to be admitted. And yet the Treasury Department proceeds to neutralize this privilege by a ruling that defines a student to be “a person (1) who intends to pursue some of the higher branches of study, or who seeks to be fitted for some particular profession or occupation (2) for which facilities of study are not afforded in his own country; (3) for whose support and maintenance in this country, as a student, provision has been made, and (4) who, upon completion of his studies, expects to return to China.” (Regulations, 1900, p. 35.) It would sound strange to read in a dictionary of the English language the only definition of student to be “one who pursues a super graduate course and is provided in advance with a competency.” And yet such is the interpretation of the word of the treaties which is followed by the Immigration Bureau. It will be seen that four conditions are attached to the admission of a Chinese student into the United States, not one of which is warranted by the treaty. The effect is that the doors of American universities and colleges are practically closed to the Chinese race.

Merchants are among the enumerated classes in the treaties entitled to admission and residence in the United States, and yet so many restrictions are applied to their entrance and residence that in many instances they amount to a violation of the treaty. Merchants and others of the exempt class are required, under the law, upon reaching the United States to produce certificates setting forth a series of facts as to their past lives, occupation, and standing in China. But this certificate, duly viséed, is not accepted as sufficient evidence of their right to enter. They are subjected to a most searching examination by the customs officials. At San Francisco, where most of them arrive, they are lodged in the loft of a wooden house awaiting this examination. It is practically an imprisonment, lasting sometimes for weeks and even months. They are not allowed to see their friends. Cases are reported where persons have become sick and no docter was allowed to see them, and deaths have occurred.

In the examination or inquisition above noted the merchant, student, or other of the exempt class is compelled to answer a great variety of questions and to give an account of his past life, and if any of his answers are inconsistent with the statements in the certificate, or for any other cause they create suspicion as to their correctness, the applicant is refused admission and compelled to return to China. The manner of these examinations is reprehensible. Men and women are examined alone, neither their friends nor a lawyer in their behalf being allowed to be present, and the interpreter is generally a foreigner. There are so many dialects of the Chinese language that one interpreter can not understand them all. Hence misunderstandings often arise and injustice is inflicted, whereas if a competent interpreter, who understood the particular dialect spoken by the applicant, should be allowed to be present misunderstanding and consequent injustice would be avoided.

The certificates are required to be in the English language, but they also appear in duplicate in Chinese. The customs inspectors take advantage of every technicality to reject them, even when there is no evidence of fraud. It is made by law the duty of the United States consul at the port of departure in China “to examine into the truth of the statements set forth in said certificate,” and to refuse to visé the same if not found correct. Yet if a certificate duly viséed by the consul is presented with the omission of a single particular in English, though it may appear in the Chinese text, it is rejected.

To illustrate the extreme severity with which the officials carry out the law, I cite one or two recent cases. Last year several merchants came to San Francisco with a good supply of money and credit to make purchases. They were provided with the legal certificates viséed by the American consul, but it appeared that in their certificates some parts of their former career were not filled up in English, although properly filled up in Chinese. The objection was raised by the customs authorities that the certificates were defective. It was contended on their behalf that the law was complied with, as every detail was mentioned in the certificate, although some of it was only in Chinese, and it was offered to supply the omission in the English from the Chinese text, but the authorities would not allow it. The case was appealed to the Treasury Department, and the decision of the San Francisco authorities was confirmed. It was of no avail that these merchants had come 10,000 miles, that their certificates were quite sufficient as far as the Chinese text was concerned, and that the American consul who viséed the document was at fault in not seeing that all the parts were filled up in the English text. It was suggested that the merchants be released under bonds and that their certificates be sent back to China for correction. There was no suspicion of fraud, yet the suggestion was not heeded, and these merchants were compelled to return to China. It was afterwards stated that they went to Europe to purchase their goods.

One more case will be sufficient to illustrate the manner in which the law is applied. During the present year a boy of 16 years of age, sent by his father, a merchant of good standing in Shanghai, to this country for the obvious purpose of finishing his education, and armed with a proper certificate, applied to the collector of custom, at Malone, N. Y., for admission into the United States. His application was rejected and he was obliged to return to China, notwithstanding the assurance given by the Chinese consul at New York of the bona fide student character and purpose of the boy. The ground upon which he was denied admission was not because there was any doubt as to the genuine student character of the boy, but simply because of the statement found in his certificate, which had been duly viséed by the United States consul-general at Shanghai, that the boy’s intention of coming to the United States was “to study the English language.”

The examination above stated is not the only inconvenience of that character to which merchants and others are subjected. They are kept in confinement pending inquiries set on foot by the customs inspectors. These inquiries are often made in a surreptitious manner; the applicants for admission are not afforded an opportunity to confront those who give damaging information against them or to rebut their statements. The report of the inspector is decisive as to their admission or deportation to China, and their only remedy is an appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury in Washington, which is virtually to the Commissioner of Immigration. The report of the inspector is ex parte, and the applicant can only support his appeal by ex parte affidavits, as no judicial hearing or orderly examination by counsel is allowed. The Treasury officials on appeal, however fair-minded they are, have no opportunity of hearing witnesses or taking fresh evidence, and usually disregard the affidavits and accept the report of the inspector. Would it be inappropriate for me to say that such a proceeding seems like a travesty of justice?

To send a Chinese back upon his arrival in this country is a great hardship, especially when it is based upon technicalities often without merit. It means to him loss of business, of money, and of time, as well as blighted hopes. The result is sometimes fatal.

There are other hardships suffered by Chinese subjects seeking admission to the United States, which are not so much the result of injustice on the part of officials as the laws and regulations adopted ostensibly to enforce the treaties. As already mentioned, the law of Congress requires of merchants and others coming to the United States a certificate authenticated by the United States consul at the port or place of departure. At many places in China whence they depart there is no American consul. Most of the Chinese go to Hongkong to ship for this country. It is impossible to obtain there the required certificate, it being a British port, and they not being residents of that place. It has been held by the Treasury Department that Chinese coming from a foreign port must procure the certificate of the authorities of that port, and that the certificate of the Chinese consul there is not sufficient. In most instances it is not possible for the authorities of the foreign port to make out the certificate giving the facts required by the law. The only -person who could do so is the Chinese consul, and under the construction given to the law by the Treasury Department this officer is not permitted to give the certificate, and the Chinese seeking to come to the United States from such foreign ports suffer great inconvenience.

I have thus far referred to the hardships suffered by the Chinese merchants and others in securing the admission to the United States which they are guaranteed by the treaties. But after they have overcome these obstructions thrown in their way by the customs officials, they are constantly liable to annoyances and hardships while resident in the United States at the hands of these officials. To some of these I beg to call your attention. Chinese residing in the United States are often annoyed and harassed by overzealous inspectors and United States marshals, who, without a word of warning, surround a community of Chinese, herd them together, and demand the immediate production of their registration certificates or other proofs of their right to remain in the country; and if no such evidence is found on their persons they are placed in confinement until a tedious process of investigation is gone through and their right to remain in the United States is proved to the entire satisfaction of the inspector or other officer of the law, as the case may be. Even merchants well known locally in the city or town they reside in are not exempt from this mode of inquisition, to the detriment of their business and annoyance personally.

One of the glaring incidents of the kind was that of Hong Sling, a merchant of Chicago, who, while visiting Decatur, Ill., last year, was pounced upon by a United States officer and challenged to show proof of his right to be in the country. He gave his name, place and character of his business, and other evidence of his character as a merchant, including a letter signed by the Hon. Mr. Gage, Secretary of the Treasury, certifying to his standing as a merchant personally known to him. But the officer was not satisfied, and threatened immediate arrest unless a legal certificate was produced, although the law required the registration of laborers only and made registration of merchants voluntary on their part. After thorough search of his own baggage, Hong Sling finally succeeded in finding his certificate, which he happened to have taken along with him. Then kicking him and abusing him, the officer permitted him to go on his way, greatly humiliated in the presence of a large crowd that had gathered around him.

Chinese lawfully residing in this country can not pass over the boundary without getting proper papers by filing an application one month prior to their departure. Some Chinese, not knowing this regulation, have been caused hardships. Inconvenience is caused when a Chinese is suddenly called away from the United States. Instances have occurred where Americans taking Chinese servants with them out of the United States, and not having time to file application as required, have not been permitted to bring their servants back on their return.

Merchants doing a large business for many years in this country and desirous of sending for members of their families in China can not do so unless they themselves return to China to get the necessary certificate. Neither the Chinese minister nor a Chinese consul is permitted to issue the certificates. This also works great hardships to many Chinese in this country.

Registered Chinese laborers when they go back to China on a visit are obliged, unless the time is extended, to return within a year. In case they want the time extended, they have to send their papers back to this country to be certified by the Chinese consul at the port of departure. The papers are often lost on the way, and there does not seem to be any way of replacing them. In any case, it is a tedious proceeding and liable to vexatious delays.

Chinese merchants, who have a settled business in this country, are often denied landing upon their return from a visit to China or elsewhere on the least pretext. Consequently their business has to suffer, in addition to the heavy expense they are put to in appealing their cases.

The foregoing somewhat tedious statement of the hardships suffered by the Chinese who seek admission to and residence in the United States, because of the laws of Congress and the regulations of the Treasury Department, might be enlarged did it seem necessary. But I think the cases cited are sufficient to demonstrate that the spirit and intent of the treaties are being defeated. It further shows, I am sorry to say, that the officials of the Government of the United States, to whom is intrusted the enforcement of the laws, treat the Chinese, not as subjects of a friendly power lawfully seeking the benefit of treaty privileges, but as suspected criminals, and that merchants, students, and others clearly entitled to residence in the country do not receive the courtesy and consideration due them, but are looked upon as offenders and suspects, and treated as such. It is not becoming in me to laud the merits of my own people or to claim for them undue consideration. I may, however, without impropriety, recall the language of the President of the United States, who properly interpreted the spirit and desires of my Government, when Congress at an earlier period sought to legislate in an unfriendly manner. He said:

This ancient Government, ruling a polite and sensitive people, distinguished by a high sense of national pride, may properly desire an adjustment of their relations with us which would in all things confirm, and in no degree endanger, the permanent peace and amity and the growing commerce and prosperity which it has been the object and the effect of our existing treaties to cherish and perpetuate. (Message of President Hayes, March 1, 1879.)

iii.—whether the exclusion laws have proved to be for the best interests of the united states.

Having discussed the diplomatic history of the treaties and laws of Congress, and examined how far and in what manner these laws work hardships to the Chinese, I come now to consider the question whether they have proved to be for the best interest of the United States in an economic aspect.

If the present laws have worked for the best interest of the United States, this fact would furnish a very strong reason for their permanent retention upon the statute books. If they have not worked for the interest of the United States, then it must be admitted that a change is not only desirable but absolutely necessary. It is not the desire of the Chinese Government in making this communication to enter into any argument concerning this matter, but the sole purpose is to furnish in as succinct a form as possible some of the facts upon which the Chinese Government bases its belief that the laws in question have worked injury to both countries.

A brief history of the events which led up to the troubles culminating in the exclusion of Chinese laborers from the United States may be of value in understanding this question.

In 1844 five ports in the Chinese Empire were opened to American commerce under a treaty negotiated by Caleb Gushing. The commerce of the United States with the ports of China grew rapidly. As already stated, in 1868 the Burlingame treaty was entered into and ratified by both countries, under the terms of which the right of Chinese to immigrate to the United States was admitted, and the promise was made that the subjects of China should enjoy the same privileges, exemptions, and immunities respecting travel and residence as the subjects of the most favored nation. At that time the Pacific railroads were being built across the western part of the United States, and other large enterprises were projected on the Pacific coast. Labor on the Pacific coast was very scarce, and in frequent instances day laborers received higher wages than were paid to skilled artisans in the eastern part of the United States. There was then no alien contract-labor law on the statute books of the United States, and the railroad companies sent their agents to Canton and contracted for many thousands of Chinese.

This influx of Chinese labor naturally attracted a great deal of attention in certain quarters. The labor agitators feared that the scarcity of labor from which the far West had suffered would be at an end, and that wages would be reduced. The attention of Congress was called to the Chinese question, and instead of passing an alien contract-labor law, as was done later, that body attempted the restriction of Chinese immigration. A bill was passed restricting the immigration of Chinese and was vetoed by President Hayes; the veto being accompanied by a message so convincing that I take the liberty of attaching a copy^a of it and request your honorable Government to give it the consideration which is its due. (See inclosure No. 3.) The excitement in the West had been taken advantage of by what were known as “sand-lot” politicians, led by Dennis Kearney. These men, it will be remembered, precipitated riots in which a number of Chinese were killed. A careful examination of the records in the State Department will not disclose a single instance in which the Chinese were the aggressors. The Pacific coast States, I am informed, were very evenly divided politically at that time, and both of the great political parties were forced to declare against the Chinese. For no party without taking such a stand could have won the support of those who then held the balance of power in California and Oregon. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that Congress again attempted to settle this question by the exclusion of Chinese laborers. They passed such a bill. It was vetoed by President Arthur by the special message of April 4, 1882, which reviews the history of Chinese immigration and the restrictions sought to be placed upon it. A copy^a of this message is attached hereto, to which attention is directed. (See inclosure No. 4.) This Congress shortly afterwards passed a bill restricting Chinese immigration, which became a law. It was not so stringent as subsequent legislation, but it was an opening wedge for the Scott law of 1888, followed by the Geary law of 1892. In 1894 the last treaty concerning this subject was entered into, and was considered by the Chinese Government as a somewhat favorable modification of the Geary law. A copy^a of this treaty is likewise attached hereto. (See inclosure No. 5.)

The arguments against the admission of Chinese to the United States are well known and can be very briefly stated; it is claimed that the Chinese will work for less wages than the American workman; it is claimed that the population of China consisting of 400,000,000 people would, if immigration were unrestricted, overrun the United States and destroy its institutions; it is claimed that the Chinese do not come with the intention of becoming citizens, but return to China as soon as they acquire sufficient means to establish themselves in the country of their nativity; and it is claimed that their standard of living is so low that they consume practically nothing and add but little to the purchasing element of the community.

There has now been a period of nineteen years of partial and total exclusion of Chinese laborers. Of this there have been thirteen years of total exclusion and six years of partial exclusion, preceded by a period of unlimited admission of the subjects of the Chinese Empire. It is an easy matter to trace the comparative effect of unlimited immigration, partial exclusion, and total exclusion.

I will first take the question of labor. The rates of wages for the different periods are taken from the Fifteenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor of the United States. The average rate of wages for labor in California in 1870, with unrestricted Chinese immigration, was $2 per day. It remained stationary at this rate until 1884 when, under partial restriction of Chinese immigration, it was raised to $2.31 per day. Immediately upon the passage of the act of 1884 the average wages dropped to $1.70. In 1893, the first year after the passage of the Geary law, the average wages in California for laborers was $1.73 per day. After the passage of the Geary law wages for labor in California steadily declined until in 1898 the average was only $1.59 per day. These figures are official and prove conclusively that the exclusion of Chinese has not had the effect of raising wages where Chinese labor is employed.

The fact is that Chinese labor does not compete and never has competed with American labor, but supplements American labor and is of advantage to it. It is not difficult to explain why this is so. The Chinese are not skilled in the lines of industry in which wages are highest in the United States. They are skilled in those lines of labor in which the United States is deficient. They are agriculturists and thoroughly familar with agricultural products which the Department of Agriculture has by successful experiments demonstrated are easily grown within the United States. The successful tea garden in South Carolina would be only one garden out of thousands instead of an isolated curiosity, if the Chinese immigration law should be expunged from the statute books. The successful silk farms in Louisiana and California would no longer be unique, and the United States would become an exporter of raw silk. The present development of the rice industry in the States of Louisiana and Texas would be but a start toward the reclamation of the swamp lands of the United States, and the possibilities in this direction could scarcely be estimated beforehand. The reports of the Land Commissioner of the United States show that less than one-half of the area of the United States is now under cultivation. In the line of agriculture alone more Chinese could be used in the United States than would emigrate to this country in a century. The rate of wages paid to Chinese laborers would be paid according to the value of the productions as is now paid to American labor, and as the Chinese people are not skilled in the industrial lines prominent in the United States and are not adapted to those employments they would enter into competition with no American labor but would organize for themselves new lines of labor and new occupations according to their training in the country of their nativity. They came to the United States when the laundry business was not only in its infancy but practically unknown. They made it a great industry, not only for themselves but for Americans. The cut-rate laundries are American laundries. In no city are the cheapest rates to be found in the Chinese laundries. The same may be said of domestic service.

It is claimed that the population of China consists of 400,000,000 people. It is very doubtful whether this is a correct estimate, as no accurate census has ever been taken of the population of China. A reference to the reports of the consuls of the United States holding official posts in China and of immigration statistics will show that all the immigration into the United States from China has come from the single province of Kwangtung (Canton), which has a population of about 25,000,000; of this population only about 5,000,000 live in those districts which solely supply Chinese immigrants. The reason for this is to be found in the character of the Chinese. The Chinese is averse to travel and not inclined to emigrate from China. This is shown by the fact that while every country in Europe has thrown its doors open to Chinese immigration, it is very rare that a Chinese is found in any of the European countries. The wages in those countries are very much higher than the wages in China, and there is no barrier whatever to prevent the Chinese from going to Europe, but they do not go. The reason they come to the United States is that they have friends and relatives in this country, and are therefore sure of assistance in making a start in the New World. Even the desire to come is not so extensive as might be expected, as is shown by the census periods. In 1860 there were 34,933 Chinese in the United States; in 1870 there were 63,249; in 1880 there were 105,465; in 1890 there were 107,488; and in 1900, 89,863. It will be seen that at the time of the prohibition of the immigration of Chinese the Chinese population had not increased as rapidly as the American population. Instead of having more Chinese in proportion there were not as many. In the entire ten years from 1880 to 1890 the Chinese population of the United States increased by only 2,023. In the last ten years, ending with 1900, the Chinese population had decreased by 17,625. These facts and figures should at once put a stop to the fallacious though popular argument that this country would be in imminent danger of being overrun with millions upon millions of Chinese should the bars of exclusion be let down.

The next objection, that the Chinese do not acquire citizenship, is a peculiar one. They are not allowed by the laws privileges accorded to the people of other countries of becoming naturalized. If they were accorded the same privileges as other people, many of them would become citizens; but if they should not it would not be against the interests of the United States. It is a matter of notoriety that the Swedes and Norwegians have settled in certain communities and there obtained control of local politics. The same is true of the people of other countries. It is certainly not very desirable that a foreign element should have control of American politics, and that is the main effect of naturalization. The fact that the Chinese do not seek to interfere with the internal affairs of the country of their residence ought to count in their favor.

In 1890, which was the year in which a census was taken nearest the year when the Chinese were excluded, the census reports show that out of 82,329 prisoners in the United States only 407 were Chinese. And out of 73,045 paupers in almshouses in the United States only 13 were Chinese. An analysis of the offenses for which the Chinese were convicted shows that they were practically all of a petty nature. The Chinese by the census of 1890 show the smallest percentage of criminals and paupers of any nationality within the United States.

The objection that the standard of living of the Chinese is lower than that of the Americans can not now be sustained. The Chinese, owing to the overcrowded condition of their country, have in times past lived very cheaply. But should a commission examine into the facts it could be proved that contact with other more extravagant countries has very greatly modified the habits of the Chinese in this particular and has led them to acquire many new wants. This largely accounts for the great increase in the Chinese trade. If the Chinese did not want anything more than he did a hundred years ago he would not buy any more, but the statistics show that his purchases are increasing more rapidly than those of the inhabitants of any other country. An inquiry directed to the leading houses of cities in which Chinese reside will develop the fact that the Chinese use as many and as expensive articles of food and clothing in proportion to their means as the people of any other nation. It is true that a Chinese who makes little will spend but little, in order to prevent the necessity of having to apply to charitable organizations for subsistence. But, after all, a Chinese is not unlike other people in the matter of spending money. It is safe to say that the more he makes the more he spends. I am sorry to say that there are thousands of Chinese in California who have worked hard for years in this country and yet have not been able to save money.

The Chinese Government does not believe that there would be any great immigration from China to the United States should all restrictions be removed. The principal objection to the exclusion law is that it seriously affects the commercial relations between the two countries. The American people took a prominent part in opening up to the world the immense foreign trade of China. The first American vessel that appeared in Chinese ports was in 1874, and the trade with the United States far outstripped that with any other nation except England until those troubles on the Pacific slope brought about a reaction in China. The Chinese people felt that they had been wronged by having restrictions placed upon them which were not enforced against any other people. I beg to append a table^a furnished by the Bureau of Statistics showing the exports from San Francisco to China during the past thirty years, which bears out my statement. (See inclosure No. 6.)

The history of this commerce as shown by this table is practically a history of the agitation against the Chinese upon the Pacific coast. In 1872, before the agitation, the exports amounted to upward of $7,000,000. The agitation commenced, and in 1876 the exports fell to $126,000. As soon as President Hayes vetoed the first anti-Chinese bill the exports increased to over $9,000,000. Another bill was introduced, and the exports fell to $185,000. The year after the Geary law was passed the exports were $123,000. Owing to the just attitude lately assumed by the United States Government in China, and the rumor that the exclusion law which is about to expire would not be reenacted, a better feeling has prevailed, and the exports have again increased to over $2,000,000. Had the exports averaged as they did in 1879, they would have been $200,000,000 more than they have been from the single port of San Francisco.

The Bureau of Statistics in its report for December, 1899, uses the following language:

The more rapid development of the privileges of foreigners in China and the introduction of modern commercial methods dates from the treaty of Shimonoseki, made between China and Japan in 1895, at the close of the war between those nations, and followed by a commercial treaty in 1896. The important features of these treaties were that they opened the waters of the principal rivers and canals to citizens of other nations, giving foreigners the right to purchase goods or produce in the interior of China, to rent warehouses without the payment of special taxes or exactions, and to engage freely in all kinds of manufacturing industries in the treaty ports; also to import all kinds of machinery, paying only the stipulated import duties thereon, and upon products manufactured by them in China paying only such inland transit dues as are leviable on imported merchandise (the latter provision having been somewhat modified, however, by the commercial treaty). While the China-Japan treaty specially conferred these privileges only on Japanese subjects, they at once became applicable to the subjects of other nations having full treaty relations with China under the “most favored nation” principle. The prompt result of this was a movement from all parts of the business world in the direction of China and the establishment of business and manufacturing industries not only in the old treaty ports, but in the new ones which were opened by the Japanese treaty and by subsequent action of the Chinese Government. This was followed by other evidences of a disposition to adopt modern methods. The railroad from Pekin to Tientsin was quickly completed by the Chinese Government and agreements made looking to the construction by foreign capital of other lines thousands of miles in length; telegraphs were extended; electric roads, electric lights, and telephones introduced in the principal cities; mining and manufacturing concessions freely granted; the West River, which penetrates southern China from Canton westward, was opened to commerce, and, finally, small steamers under foreign control were given permission to penetrate to the interior limits of navigation on all the rivers of the provinces containing treaty ports. The effect of this is already seen in the establishment of factories and business houses, the construction of railroads, the extension and multiplication of steam navigation lines, and the opening of mines in the great sections where the coal and iron deposits are said to be the largest in the known world.

This is a true description of the progress now in China, and it will be seen that with the statistics showing that the United States was not overrun with Chinese labor before this period of progress, this country could not now be overrun when the demand for labor in China itself has so vastly increased. On account of the exclusion act, the American people are not securing the share they would otherwise have in the profits of this period of Chinese progress. It is natural that China should buy of the country to which it sells. Instead of that, it sells the most to the United States, and although it favors American goods above those of any other country, it largely buys from England. The imports of merchandise from England into China increased from 14,952,000 taels in 1878 to 33,960,000 in 1895. Those of the United States increased from 2,253,000 to 5,093,000. The imports from the United States show a falling off from 9,263,000 taels to 5,093,000 the year that the Geary law was put in operation. The exports to the United Kingdom had fallen off from 38,689,000 taels in 1872 to 12,945,000 in 1897, while the exports to the United States increased from 11,943,000 in 1872 to 17,828,000 in 1897. China continued to sell her goods to the United States, but greatly decreased the proportion of the goods bought from the United States. The reports of the United States consuls officially residing in China are uniform that American goods are preferred, but goods are being purchased from England. The percentage of the exports to China secured by the United States has greatly decreased during this period of activity in Chinese trade. The total trade of the United States has increased somewhat, but it does not bear as large a proportion as it formerly did. This is a condition which must give concern to both countries, and one which would seem to create the necessity for a commission to examine thoroughly into the entire question of Chinese commerce with the United States and the immigration of the Chinese people.

The diplomatic relations between the two countries are, greatly to the satisfaction of the Chinese Empire, most cordial, and afford an unusual opportunity for the Government of the United States to correct the false apprehensions of its people and allay their prejudices, and the Chinese Government to put an end to whatever prejudice may exist upon the part of the Chinese people against the United States. It is the wish of both Governments that these commercial questions should be settled in a manner which will promote the prosperity of both nations and bring about a friendly intercourse between their respective people which will be mutually profitable and gratifying. I think I have shown that the commercial questions are intimately connected with the treatment of the Chinese who seek to enter the United States under the guaranty of treaty, and that the former can not be satisfactorily developed and maintained without a fair and honorable adjustment of the subject of immigration.

iv.—should the exclusion laws be reenacted, and if so, to what extent of territory should they be applied, and what modifications are called for by experience in their enforcement.

The review of the diplomatic history which I have made makes it clear, I think, that the Chinese negotiators of the treaty of 1880 did not contemplate a permanent exclusion of Chinese laborers from the United States, and the American commissioners held out the hope that it would only be a temporary measure and not general in its application. Certain it is that if it had been proposed or intimated that the exclusion would continue for twenty years, the Cainese Government never would have agreed to the treaty. It is also quite certain that if the present laws shall be reenacted, the two Governments can not have the cordial and harmonious intercourse which should be maintained, neither can the commercial relations be as extensive, as intimate, and as profitable as the economic conditions of the two countries demand and justify. Can the Government of the United States afford to pay the high price which it will cost to maintain laws which, I think, I have shown are contrary to the spirit and intent of the treaties, to the recognized principles of jurisprudence, and to the spirit of amity and fair dealing which should control the conduct of nations? I feel confident that if the honorable Congress of the United States will cause a thorough investigation of this important subject to be made, uncontrolled by the unthinking clamor of selfish interests, it will find a better way to conserve the interests of this great country than by the reenactment of the Chinese exclusion laws as they now exist and are enforced.

the hawaiian islands.

When the American commissioners were in Pekin negotiating the treaty of 1880 and asking that power might be conferred upon the Congress of the United States to limit or suspend the immigration of Chinese, they were asked by the Chinese negotiators if they could “give them any idea of the laws which would be passed to carry such power into execution.” The American commissioners, among other written assurances, said: “If there were sections of the country where such immigration was clearly beneficial, then the legislation of the United States under this power would be adapted to such circumstances. For example, there might be a demand for Chinese labor in the South and a surplus of such labor in California, and Congress might legislate in accordance with these facts. In general the legislation would be in view of and depend upon the circumstances at the moment such legislation became necessary.”

Since that carefully worded assurance was given the Hawaiian Islands have been annexed to the United States. It has been the policy of the controlling interests and the practice of the past governments of those islands to admit Chinese subjects into those islands under reasonable conditions. At the time of the annexation there were residing there approximately 20,000 Chinese. The official statistics show that a large number of the Chinese population had been born in the islands, and that a considerable number of them have become lawfully naturalized citizens of Hawaii. They also show that many of them have become holders of real estate; that they outnumber all other nationalities, native or foreign, as merchants and traders, and that in three of the leading branches of trade, as shown by the official licenses issued, they exceed all other nationalities. In social life, also, their position is worthy of consideration, as it will be seen that of the Chinese population over 6 years of age 48.47 per cent are able to read and write English or Hawaiian. Of Chinese children over 6 years 92 per cent attend school, and many of them have been educated in the government colleges and higher institutions of instruction. They are prominent in Christian churches and in aiding in the support of hospitals and other charitable institutions. They freely intermarry with the native population. They are recognized as industrious, temperate, and law-abiding and as important factors in various social movements.

The reason which brought about the immigration treaty of 1880 between China and the United States, the treaty of 1894, and the legislation based on those treaties which exclude Chinese laborers from the United States does not apply to the Hawaiian Islands. In the States it is alleged that Chinese labor comes in competition with white labor to the detriment of the latter, and that it is contrary to their interests to admit the Chinese; but exactly the reverse is the case in the Hawaiian Islands, as they come into competition with neither white nor native labor, and have been and are regarded there as a desirable element of the population.

That such is the case we have the authority of the present government of these islands. The territorial governor in his annual report to the Secretary of the Interior, just made, in speaking of the employment of large numbers of Chinese upon the plantations, says:

It may safely be said that such action never has, does not now, and never will interfere with either American skilled or unskilled labor. * * * It has been demonstrated beyond a doubt that the unskilled labor upon the plantations must be furnished by other than Americans. This would be true even if the large estates were divided into small holdings. It is simply a physical impossibility for the Anglo-Saxon satisfactorily to perform the severe labor required in the sugar fields. This being true, Hawaii is entitled to legislation favorable to its greatest prosperity,

which he shows can best be secured by the admission of Chinese under reasonable restrictions. (See Report, August 28, 1901, p. 63.)

Do not the Hawaiian Islands present the exact conditions foreshadowed by the American commissioners at Pekin in 1880, and is not the Congress thereby pledged to permit the admission of Chinese laborers into those islands under the reasonable regulations indicated by the governor of the Territory?

the philippine islands.

By the fortunes of war these islands came into the possession of the United States. Previous to that event and for centuries very intimate and important relations had existed between them and China owing to their contiguity and the favorable trade and industrial conditions. The commercial intercourse between the cities of southern China and these islands has been and is now very extensive, and the Chinese population resident there is very large, engaged in every walk of life. There are innumerable artisans, farmers, traders, merchants, bankers, and persons of large wealth—in fact, business men of every legitimate character. Many of these are native born, of which a considerable portion are the offspring of marriage with the Philippine races, and the manners, customs, and characteristics of the people of the islands are so much in harmony with those of the Chinese that the latter for ages have met with a hearty welcome and have fraternized readily with them. During this long period and up to a recent date there have existed free immigration and unrestricted commerce.

Notwithstanding the fact that the President of the United States had repeatedly stated that it was not his intention to change the existing conditions in the territory acquired from Spain, further than was necessary to restore and preserve order, and that the whole subject of their future relations would be left to Congress for determination, within a few months after peace was declared the military commander of the Philippines, General Otis, issued an order extending to these islands the Chinese exclusion laws of the United States. By the decree of this officer, without previous authorization of the President or the Secretary of War, and without antecedent notice, this extreme and harsh measure was enforced against the Chinese subjects. And the same still remains in force, notwithstanding the earnest protests and remonstrances of the Chinese Government.

It is respectfully submitted that this measure was, in its inception and now in its continued enforcement, in violation of the principles of international law. When the treaties of 1880 and 1894 were negotiated the Philippine Islands were a part of the dominions of Spain. Those treaties were framed with a view to the peculiar condition of the labor question in the United States, and the Chinese Government reluctantly yielded to the earnest representations of the commissioners of the United States that they were necessary to allay the apprehensions of the white laborers in this country. Only as a matter of comity, and to gratify your Government on that point, did the Chinese Government consent to the treaties. They can not be applied to other territory in another and widely separated part of the globe, where an altogether different condition of labor exists, without the consent of the Chinese Government. To do so would seem to be a breach of good faith as well as of international law, and I feel persuaded that, upon a full consideration of the subject, neither the President nor the Congress will continue that military order in force by its reenactment in legislation.

It is hardly necessary to assert that under no state of circumstances could the Chinese Government have been persuaded to sign a convention which could be interpreted to authorize the exclusion of Chinese subjects from the Philippine Islands, where they had found a welcome and a home, and with which islands as their nearest neighbors its people for centuries had carried on an extensive and profitable commerce. And it is worthy of consideration by the President, who is so justly distinguished for his high standard of right, and by the Congress of a great and enlightened nation, to inquire whether the Chinese, who have lived in and traded with those islands for centuries before the United States had an existence even as colonies of Great Britain, have not acquired vested rights of which they ought not to be deprived even by the legislation of Congress, much less by the mere order of a military commander. Attention is called to the fact that for nearly forty years unrestricted commerce with the Philippine Islands has been guaranteed to the Chinese under the stipulation of article 47 of the treaty of commerce between Spain and the Chinese Government. Under the protection of this treaty a large commerce had been established, and it can hardly be regarded as an act of comity toward China to destroy the commerce built up under the solemn guarantees of the Spanish Government. The order of the military commander, or kindred legislation if enacted, means the destruction or impairment of a large and lucrative trade to and from the seaports of China. It means the cutting off of many thousands and tens of thousands of Chinese and mestizos from their kinsmen in China. It means a radical change in the industries and occupations of these people, and great hardships and impoverishment in many cases. Certainly before an intelligent and right-minded body of legislators shall take such a course they will carefully examine the situation of affairs.

What has been the influence of the Chinese in the past centuries and what is it to-day in the Philippines? I must not weary you, as I might, with long citations from recognized authorities in the past and present. I cite only three from many travelers and officials who testify that the Chinese have largely contributed to the prosperity of these islands. Dr. Antonio Morga, in his work on the Philippines, written in the sixteenth century, says of Manila:

It is true the town can not exist without the Chinese, as they are workers in all trades and business, and are very industrious.

Juan de la Concepcion, a writer and traveler in the seventeenth century, sums up the situation as follows:

Without the trade and commerce of the Chinese these dominions could not have subsisted.

The testimony of writers of the present day might be reproduced in great number, but it will probably suffice to cite the official report of the nearest commercial representative of the United States, Consul-General Wildman, of Hongkong, who was on duty throughout the Spanish war and the subsequent insurrection, and, no doubt, was well informed on the subject of which he wrote. In his report to the Secretary of State of November 22, 1898, a short time after the promulgation of the Otis order, he wrote:

Broadly speaking, there is not an industry in the islands (Philippines) that will not be ruined if Chinese labor is not permitted.

And in a report the following year, speaking of the possibility of competing at Manila with the extensive manufactories at Hongkong, he says it “would only be possible if Chinese labor were admitted freely.” (Consular Reports, November, 1899, p. 421.)

The unwisdom of the Otis order is demonstrated by the situation of affairs in the possessions of other nations in the same quarter of the world. The British are reputed to be the most successful in governing colonies, and are usually controlled in their conduct by the best interests of the people over whom they exercise government. In the nearby colony of Hongkong, in the Straits Settlements, and in the Malay Peninsula the British Government welcomes and encourages the immigration of Chinese and admits them to all the rights of citizenship. The result is that Hongkong, Singapore, Penang, and Malakka are in a nourishing condition and peace and contentment prevail. If Congress should, before taking action, send a commission to the Philippines and to the British, French, and other colonies in the Far East, I have no doubt such a report would be made as would lead to the reestablishment of Chinese immigration in the Philippines.

Why should the Chinese be excluded from the Philippines, when free entrance is granted to all the other races of the East? While the immigration of the Japanese, the Siamese, the Malay, the Singalese, and the Hindoo coolies is properly permitted, is it a just and fair discrimination to exclude the Chinese?

Since the acquisition of the Philippines by the United States it has been correctly stated in this country that their possession would constitute a convenient base of operations for the extension and maintenance of a large commerce between China and the United States. When, by the fortunes of war, these islands were brought into the American union, my Government saw in this proximity an additional reason why the friendly relations which had so long existed between the two nations should become more intimate and harmonious. And it welcomes your efforts with the other great powers to maintain an open door to the commerce of the Chinese Empire. But how can these expectations be realized if the Congress of your country shall ratify the action of the authorities in the Philippines in cutting off access of the Chinese to the islands with which for ages they have maintained intercourse, and in destroying the commerce of important cities with them?

From what I have above stated, it will be seen that the treaties of 1880 and 1894, which relate to the immigration of Chinese solely to the then existing territory of the United States, do not include the Hawaiian Islands or the Philippine Archipelago within their purview. I am aware that the honorable Congress of the United States has full power to legislate for these newly acquired possessions. Before the enactment of the present exclusion laws, the United States Government deemed it necessary to send a special commission to China to negotiate a convention for the modification of the existing treaties between the two countries, which was concluded in November, 1880. This clearly shows the desirability of consulting the wishes of both Governments in a matter that affects their mutual relations. In view of the vast interests involved and the commercial and friendly relations between China and the United States, I earnestly hope that no hasty step will be taken looking to the reenactment of the exclusion laws, in deference to clamor from any quarter, until every effort has been made to obtain a broad and comprehensive view of the question.

It will be seen also from what has been said that the Imperial Government of China does not consider the reenactment of the exclusion laws by the American Congress necessary. But if the honorable Congress should, after proper investigation, still hold to the opinion that the demands of national policy require the retention of some such measure on the statute books, I beg to point out a course which is not open to so many serious objections and which leads to the same results. Why can not the general immigration laws of the United States be so modified and broadened in their scope as to include the immigration of Chinese in their provisions? Why can not the test be made such as to exclude the undesirable elements of all countries from the American shores irrespective of race or nationality? If such a course should be followed it would serve the purpose as effectively as the most drastic law could do. In that case there would be no invidious discrimination so long as the law were made applicable, without distinction, to Europeans, Asiatics, and Africans alike. The most objectionable feature of the present exclusion laws is that they single out the Chinese people alone for unjust exclusion.

I regret that the importance of the question and the urgency of the situation have made it necessary that I should ask so much of your valuable time, and that I should dwell at so great a length upon the topic in hand. From what I have said you will have noticed that, appealing to the provisions of Article IV of the treaty of 1880, already cited, I think it proper and incumbent upon Congress, before acting upon the question of new legislation, to examine with care into the hardships suffered by the Chinese subjects, and that this examination can best be made by a commission, who will visit the localities in the United States where the Chinese most largely congregate, and the Hawaiian and Philippine Islands, and by a personal investigation ascertain how the present laws and regulations affect the Chinese and how their exclusion affects the localities in question. I think such an investigation is due from Congress, in view of the treaty stipulations, of the desire of the Imperial Chinese Government, and of the great interests involved. I trust, therefore, that the President of the United States may see proper to send this proposition for a commission to Congress with his favorable recommendation.

If such a commission is appointed, I should hope that their report would satisfy Congress that further exclusion of Chinese from the United States is unnecessary; but if that should not occur, it ought to make plain to Congress that the present laws are in violation of justice and humanity, inflict on the Chinese unnecessary hardships and indignities, that they are not in harmony with the treaties, that they work injury to the interests of both countries, and should be materially modified.

I entertain the further hope that the investigation will lead to the conclusion that the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippine Archipelago stand on an entirely different footing and should be open to the ingress and egress of Chinese in common with other Asiatics who may resort there for purposes of labor, trade, travel, or residence.

I beg to add that I have by no means exhausted the subject. But this paper is already too long, and I feel that I ought not to exhaust your patience. In case, however, the commission should be appointed, as I have suggested, to inquire into the wording of the Chinese exclusion laws I shall be pleased to furnish to the commission further information bearing upon the subject.

In conclusion, I venture to express the belief that the honorable Congress of the United States will deal with the important question at hand in a spirit of fairness and equity and accord to Chinese subjects who wish to come to the United States for all legitimate purposes the same treatment as is accorded to the people of other countries and demanded and secured by this Government for American citizens in China—an open door and a fair field.

Accept, etc.,

Wu Ting-fang.

1. Not printed.
2. Not printed.
3. Not printed.
4. Not printed.
5. Not printed.
6. Not printed.