# U. S. Senate Speeches and Remarks of Carl Schurz/Chinese Immigration

“The President pro tempore announced that the morning hour had expired, and called up the unfinished business of the Senate at its adjournment Saturday last, which was the bill (H. R. 2201) to amend the naturalization laws, and to punish crimes against the same; and
“The Senate resumed the consideration of the said bill, as in Committee of the Whole; and the question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Williams, viz: Insert at the end of the bill the following proviso: Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to authorize the naturalization of persons born in the Chinese Empire” (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, July 4, 1870, p. 955). The text of the speech is from The Congressional Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Session, pp. 5158-5160.
NATURALIZATION LAWS.
Mr. SCHURZ. ... Mr. President, the so-called Chinese question is one which appears to affect the interests of a numerous class of people, and is therefore apt to produce an excitement; and I must confess I am somewhat pained to see that this excitement has found its way to the Senate Chamber of the United States, and that the remarks which we have listened to are rather calculated to inflame than to assuage it.
A heated fancy — I cannot use any other expression — is drawing the picture before our eyes of thirty, forty, fifty, or one hundred million Chinamen suddenly flowing from their native homes across the Pacific ocean, sweeping over this country, and fairly submerging, as under a deluge of barbarism, our whole civilization and all that is dear to us. It is a horrible picture. Now, sir, let us look the facts in the face. Chinese immigration to the Pacific coast commenced, as I understand, in the year 1848. From 1848 until 1868 the yearly average of that immigration amounted to not quite six thousand. Last year the number of Chinamen who arrived upon the Pacific coast was twelve thousand. We will suppose that it goes on increasing, and that for a number of years ahead the average will be twenty thousand. How long will it take to bring over, at that rate, a million Chinamen? Just fifty years; and considering that the immigration as it now is does not stay upon the soil of this country, but is flowing back again, and is therefore diminished, first by death, and secondly by the return of many of those who have come, we may safely assume that to bring a million Chinamen to this country at the rate of twenty thousand a year will take about seventy-five years. Have you thought of it what the aggregate population of this country is likely to be in seventy-five years?
But let us assume that the Chinese will come at the rate of fifty thousand a year. Then it would take twenty years to bring over a million; and counting the deaths and the returns, it is fair to assume that it would take about thirty years to show a round million Chinamen in this country.
Now, sir, it appears that this tremendous deluge, if indeed it is to come, will not overwhelm us, after all, so very quickly. Considering that within twenty or thirty years the population of this country will amount to about one hundred millions, it will be admitted that, whatever the increase of the average of Chinese immigration may be, they will still form a very insignificant proportion of our aggregate population.
I have said that this immigration, as we know it at the present moment, is not of a permanent character. They come here in order to work a few years to make some money, and then go home again and enjoy their gains. I do not know what the average stay of a Chinaman may be; but I assume that in all probability it is not over ten or twelve years.
Now, sir, as long as the Chinese immigration continues to have that character, I agree that it is not well fitted for naturalization. These temporary immigrants will essentially remain Chinese and not become Americans. But it is also evident that these temporary immigrants will not desire to be naturalized. They might, indeed, be prevailed upon to do so by some one who has them under his control and may find it convenient to use them as a political machine. And in so far they might become a dangerous political element, but only in localities where they accidentally congregate. We have, however, a preventive at our command which will be efficient. I fully agree with the Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Stewart,] who introduced a bill to prevent the importation of coolies under labor contracts. I think it is eminently just and proper that such a bill should be passed; that the making of labor contracts in foreign lands, by which considerable numbers of laborers may be thrown upon this continent, to be held here not exactly in slavery, but in a certain dependency which savors of servitude, should be prohibited. I am convinced that if we do pass a law like that the number of Chinamen coming to this country, being reduced to that class who come voluntarily, will be very much limited; that instead of going on increasing it will in all probability diminish.
But suppose the character of Chinese immigration to change; suppose they no longer come here for the purpose of working a few years and then to go back, but for the purpose of settling like other immigrants; do you not see that then, not only the circumstances under which they immigrate will change, but the character of the immigration will at the same time be essentially different; that we shall have a far better class? I am not prepared to say whether it is probable that we shall have a very large number of permanent Chinese settlers. So far, I understand, this class has not been very numerous upon the Pacific coast. I am aware that Chinese settlements have been formed on the islands of the Pacific ocean, and some also in British Guiana; but none so far of any importance, as far as I am aware, on our Pacific coast. Perhaps the Senator from Oregon could give more definite information on that subject. It is probable that they would prefer the tropical climate in which they thrive.
At any rate, as soon as Chinese immigration changes its character so as to form permanent settlements upon American soil, one consequence is certain: the Chinaman, transplanting himself permanently from his own home to this country, will soon cease to be a Chinaman; he will be obliged to identify himself with the interests of this country, to accommodate himself to the requirements of our civilization. What will you do with him then? Can you altogether exclude him then from our body-politic? You cannot, for you must consider that Chinese children born upon the soil of this Republic will be American citizens ipso facto as well as other natives of the soil. What, then, will you do with that population? Will it not be absolutely necessary to bring them under the beneficent influences of our social and political systems? And will it not be well to commence with the parents settling upon our soil? Is there any other solution of the problem possible? I see none.
The problem then, it seems to me, resolves itself into this: as to permanent Chinese immigration, people who come here to settle among us, to identify themselves with our interests, to join their fortunes with ours, to live under our protection, and to raise children who will be native-born citizens of this Republic, there is no other solution possible but that they should be included in our system of naturalization. On the other hand, I deem it eminently desirable that some method be found by which it shall be rendered impossible that the temporary immigrants, coming here only for the purpose of working a short period, then to go home again, shall be made a political machinery to be worked in the hands of unscrupulous employers. It is evident that the amendment brought forward by the Senator from Oregon is not a fit means to effect both ends. He excludes men from the naturalization laws on the mere ground of nativity; and it has already been pointed out to him that nativity cannot be the test without working great injustice. Neither does he desire, I think, to exclude from the benefit of our naturalization laws those Chinamen, however intelligent, well disposed, industrious, and wealthy they may be, who come among us to cast their destinies permanently with ours; but what he does desire to accomplish is to prevent from becoming an element of political power that floating class which never identifies itself with the interests of this country, but comes and goes. Is it not so? But if he does desire to make that discrimination, certainly his amendment is most imperfect.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Does the Senator wish me to answer?
Mr. SCHURZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I will say that it is impossible to reach the evil which the Senator mentions without including all Chinese; and so far as the present immigration is concerned, the intelligent and well-disposed Chinamen who come to the United States are exceedingly insignificant as to numbers. The great mass of the Chinese who come here come as servile laborers; and such will be the nature of the immigration for years and years to come, because capital is engaged now in procuring that kind of labor.
Mr. SCHURZ. I have already said that the class of people of whom the Senator speaks can be reached with certain effect: I mean by the passage of a bill like that introduced by the Senator from Nevada, prohibiting labor contracts in foreign lands, such as those under which these Chinamen are imported. But I submit to the Senator from Oregon whether it would not be possible for him to draft an amendment to the naturalization law covering that class of people who come here under labor contracts. I have hurriedly attempted to draw such a clause, but have not succeeded to my own satisfaction. But I am certain that something of the kind can be drafted that will meet the purpose, of excluding from naturalization those birds of passage who, as a political element, would be worthless and dangerous, without, however, doing injustice to those who in good faith come to cast their lot with us.
So far the question of Chinese immigration has touched the labor problem of this country in a few sporadic spots. It has here and there disturbed local arrangements. The Senator from Oregon has already alluded to what is taking place in Massachusetts at the present moment. I am certainly opposed to the introduction of a new class of serfs, and I think we can hardly have legislation too stringent to prevent that sort of dangerous invasion. But, sir, there is a certain number of Chinese workmen now among us. They have found their way even into the heart of Massachusetts; and the question devolves upon us, what is to be done with them?
I would venture upon a suggestion to our friends in Massachusetts. Instead of persecuting the Chinese would it not be far better to make a hearty attempt to educate them right in their midst? Is not this a great problem for the
celebrated philanthropists of the old Bay State? They can accomplish something very desirable. I am sure that with the teachings of our civilization — and here is a point which I consider very important, and from which it will appear that even that temporary Chinese immigration is not without its intrinsic value to this country — I am sure that with the teachings of our civilization even the Chinamen, much as he may be wedded to the customs of his old home, will gradually acquire also the wants of our civilization; and as he acquires these wants I am sure he cannot fail to acquire a taste for higher wages to satisfy those wants. And he will ask for those higher wages as soon as he begins to understand that he is entitled to them and can have them as soon as he insists upon them. I doubt not if the Crispins of North Adams, Massachusetts, instead of persecuting and swearing at the Chinese will set themselves to work to inform them of the value of their work, the Chinese will not be so absolutely forlorn and obtuse as not gradually to understand that it is better for them to take what they can get.
I believe, therefore, that the influx of a small labor element like that will by no means permanently disturb the conditions of production in such a country as Massachusetts is. I do not believe that the Chinese, interspersed with our population as they may become, if the servile contract system be stopped, will very long remain as cheap producers, as they now are; neither will they remain as bad consumers, as they now necessarily must be. On the contrary, having been for a certain season in this country, those who go home will do so with new wants; at home they will propagate those wants, and propagating them they will gradually create markets there for the products of our civilization, which so far have not existed there. If I am well informed, this result is already felt in our Chinese trade; and thus even the coolie immigration confers a not unimportant benefit upon the commercial interests of the western world.
Now, sir, I repeat, while I am strongly opposed to the servile labor contract system and coolie importation, while I am strongly in favor of legislation to prevent it, I do not see how in point of principle we can put any obstacle in the way of those Chinese who voluntarily come and reside among us and to abide by our fortunes. Their number, I am sure, as soon as the coolie trade is suppressed, will not be extravagant, and in the course of time will be hardly felt in proportion to the aggregate of our continually growing and expanding population. I am certain of another thing, and that is, that in the second generation the superior civilization of this Republic will entirely absorb theirs.
Although entertaining these views, sir, I should not have thrust this question into the debate upon this naturalization bill. I am free to say that in point of principle I cannot see how I can vote for the amendment of the Senator from Oregon, nor how I can vote against the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, comprehensive as it may seem. But had I been in the place of my friend from Massachusetts I openly confess to him I should have withheld the amendment on the present occasion. I feel perhaps as strongly upon the question of principle as he does; but still I believe that the question we are now discussing is not yet fully matured, while it now serves to obstruct the passage of a useful bill. When acting upon the Chinese question our action should, perhaps, be more carefully considered and more complete. We should, to make our legislation more satisfactory to ourselves and to the country, be prepared to put into our bill those precautions which the many-sided problem calls for. I do think, when discussing the servile labor bill offered by the Senator from Nevada, (and I hope this Congress will not adjourn without having passed such an act,) an amendment like that offered by the Senator
from Massachusetts would be well in its place. He would not have been understood as retreating from his position or the question of principle had he consented to withdraw his amendment from the present debate.
Mr. SUMNER. But my friend will see that that would be an abandonment of the whole cause. I have struggled for four years to get a vote on this proposition. This is the first time I have been able to do it.
Mr. SCHURZ. I certainly appreciate the motives of my friend from Massachusetts; but he cannot persuade me that it would be an abandonment of the whole cause. It would indeed be an abandonment of a most uncertain advantage as far as this day and this hour are concerned; but most certainly that problem must be solved at some time, and it will have to be solved soon. And surely there is also but one solution for this problem, after all that has passed in this country within the last ten years. No, sir, I do not see that it would be an abandonment of the cause. On the contrary, I am sure that the bill of the Senator from Nevada will soon bring on a most inviting opportunity for the settlement of this question. Do we not all feel the necessity, under the pressure of that excitement which now prevails in the country — unnecessarily, I think, but it does exist — of passing some bill covering this subject at the present session of Congress? And will not my friend from Massachusetts have his opportunity then? Therefore, while fully agreeing with him on the point of principle, and after having voted twice with him, thus showing that I agree with him, I would appeal to him to remove that amendment from this debate, instead of permitting it to stand in the way of legislation which he himself considers beneficent and almost necessary. For he must see himself, if he continues pressing his amendment now, it may even pass here and yet not become the law of the land, while it is more calculated to defeat the legislation to which it is joined.