1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8203 . 

ment of reasonable compensation therefor; and in case the o.wner o.r _owners of said bridge or bridges and t.he railroad company or compames desumg to use . the same shall fail to agree upon the terms with reference to the use of same, all 

matters of issue between them shall be decided by the Secretary of War upon a. hearing of the allegations aud proofs of the parties. r . 

SEc. 5. That this act shall be null and void if actual construction of the bndge or bridges herein authori~ed be not commenced within two years and com- pleted within five years from the date thereof. . . SEC. 6. That the right to alt-er, amend, or repeal th1s act IS hereby expressly reserved. · 

J\i.r. McCREARY. Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, this briO.ge bill is 

in the usual form. It was reported from the Committee on Commerce 

by the gentleman from Georgia. [Mr. CRISP J who was the acting chairman. It makes no appropriation of money, but simply authorizes the 

company to build bridges across the Kentucky River. The bridges are 

in my State and in my district and the bill is all r~ght.. [Ln.ugh~r.] 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a. thud tune; and bemg 

engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed . . 

1\Ir. McCREARY moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill 

was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table . 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ISAAC N. ENLOE. 

PRIVATE BILLS INTRODuCED AND :REFERRED. 

Under the rule private bills of the fo1lowing titles were introduced 

and referred as indicated below: . 

By 111r. GEAR: it bill (H. R. 11328) to correct the military record 

of Maltby Griffin-to the Committee on 11ilitury Affairs. 

By Mr. HIRES: A bill (H. R. 11329) granting a pension -to Sarah 

Stillings-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. MAISH: A bill (H. R. 11330) for the relief of Valeria B. 

Elliott-to the Committee on Pensions. 

By Mr. SENEY: A bill (H. R. 11331) granting a pension to Salem 

Friend-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By 1\Ir. J. B. WHITE: A bill (H. R. 11332) granting a pension to 

Eliza S. Glass-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 11333) granting a pension to Mrs. Louisa Humphrey-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By 1\Ir. WILLIAJ\iS: A bill (H. R. 11334) to pl_ace the name ?f Pauline Bichweiler on the pension-roll-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 11335) to place the name of Jacob ll. Fair on the 

pension-roll-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Mr. BAKER, of illinois. I ask unanimous consent that the Com- PETITIONS, ETC. 

mittee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar be discharged from The following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk, 

the further consideration of the bill (H. R. 8636) for the reliet of Isaac lmder the rnle, and referred as follows: 

N. Enloe, and that the bill be put upon its passage. By Mr. GEAR: Papers in the case of Malachy Griffin- to the ComThe bill was read, as follows: mittee on 1\Iilitary Affairs. 

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of War is authorized and di:r~ted to au- By Mr. MAISH : Petition 'Of James McKnight, of estate of George 

dit and pay, from any money in theTreasuryn~totherw_iseappr~pr~d,Isaac W. Rose, of Peter Conover, of estate of Henry Culp, of Peter Ro:ffensN. Enloe, late a captain in Company C, Twenty-•nxth Regrment Illinms ~antry berger, of Alexander Cobean, of Henry B. Cramer, of John Horner, of Volunteers the amount due for his services and allowances as captam, from 

the 1st day ~f October, 1.864, to the 11th day of April, 1865, at the rate allowed by estate of David W. Horner, of John Trostle, of l\felchoir Wolf, of Charles, law to officers of that grade iu said service, less first sergeant's pay, from the 1st Young of estate of Leonard :Bircker of Francis Bream of estate of 

day of October, 1864, to the 11th day of April, 1865.. . , Peter Frey, of estate of John Slyder: of David Blubaugh, of Samuel 

. The ?PEAK~RJ?ro tempore. Is there obJectiOn to the present con- s. Moritz, of John 1\funshaw, of John Martin, of George Arnold, of 

s1deration of this btll? . . Jacob Benner, ofestateofDr. David Study,ofBliza.Fette1·bo:ff,ofJacob 

1\lr. BRECKINRIDG E? of Kentucky. . I thu?-k we ough~ to hear .t~e Baker, of Peter Orendorff, of Michael Fiscel, of Nathaniel Lightner, of 

report read. I ~o not.obJec.t to tb_e ~ons1~erat10n of the bill, but li I Lewis A. Bushman, of Jacob C. Eckenrode, of Michael Frey, of John 

caught_ the readmg of Itc~rrectly, It 1~ a bill to pay an officer who had F. Haner, of Adams County, Pennsylvania; of estate ofNicholas Ec~­

a certam rank for per~or~mg th~ duties of another rank. . enrode, of estate of William Conover, of John F. Currens, and of Lydta 

Mr. BAKER, of illinoiS. ~t IS for the ~ayment of an officer f~r SIX Loyster. for reference of their claims to the Court of Claims-to the 

months and ten days who durmg that penod performed the duttes of Coinmitte<> on War Claims. 

captain, flUd whose commission should have be~n such as to operate v 

from the time he commenced to perform the duties. 

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. Was he commissioned as c::tptain? 

Mr. BAKER, of illinois. He was ultimately. However, let the 

report be read if the gentleman desires. 

Mr. BRECKI~RIDGE, of Kentucky. I am satisfied with the gentleman's statement. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and pass~d. 

Mr. BAKER, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote by wh1ch the 

bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. BLAND. Regular order. 

Mr. WASHINGTON. Iaskunanimousconsent to present and have 

printed in the RECORD an amendment which I give ?oti_ce that I D.;ten?-

to offer at the proper time to the bill for the orgamzat10n of the '!erntory of Oklahoma.. 

There was no objection. 

The amendment is as follows: 

That the Territorial government establishe~ by thi~ act shall not ~xtend to or exercise any jurisdiction over ~y part of ~Id rr:erntory o~ Oklahom~ exce~t 

as to what is known as the Pub he Land Stnp until the Prestdent shall Issue h1s 

tJroclamation as provided iu section 6 of this act. 

Mr. FELTON. I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment 

of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. BRECKINRIDGE] to the pending bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The regular order is demanded. 

1\Ir. SYMES. That is the regular order. I yield to the gentleman 

from California [Mr. FELTON] for that purpose. The amendment 

which h.e desires to offer is an amendment to the pending bilL 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. But the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 

FORNEY] bas moved that the House adjourn. 

1\fr, SYMES. ·I appeal to the gentleman from Alabama to yield a 

moment to let the gentleman from California offer this amendment. 

Mr. FORNEY. I yield to the gentleman. 

The amendment was read, as follows: 

In line 9, page 1, afler the word"--," insert" and for the selection of water- sheds that shall be preserved." Line 5, after the word •· purposes," insert" and such selected water-sbt-ds." 

1\Ir. DORSEY. I desire to correct the RECORD. 

1\Ir. BLAND. I move that the House do now adjourn. 

Tbe'motion of Mr. BLAND was agreed to-ayes 36, noes 17; and 

the House accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m.) adjourned. 

SENATE. 

MoNDAY, September 3, 1888. 

Prayer by the Chapbin, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D. 

The Journal of the proceedings of Friday last was read and approved. 

EXECUTIVE C0"!\1::\IUNIC.ATIONS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a communication from the Postmaster-General, returning, in compliance with a resolution of August 30, 1888, a resolution of the Senate of August 20l 

1888, calling for a report of the amount due postmasters under _the act 

of March 3, 1883; which,. on motion of Mr. CoCKRELL was, With the 

accompanying resolution, referred to the Committee on Post-Offices 

and Post-Roads. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e also laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, in compli- ance with a resolution of August 9, 1888, a. report of the Commissioner 

of the General Land Office, together with other papers, covering the 

decision in the case known as the Guilford Miller case, and affecting 

the title to lands claimed by the Nortb~m Pacific Railroad Company, 

alleged as being within the indemnity lands of the grant to the com- pany; which, with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed. 

PETITIO:S. 

Mr. HOAR presented the petition of Martha Webb, Mary E. Waters, 

C. M. P. Richardson, and 12 others, citizens of Salem, Mass., praying 

thalt a pension be granted to 1'11iss Anna Ella Carroll for services ren- dered the Union Army during the late war; which was referred to the 

Committee on Pensions. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, 

Mr. HA:MPTON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom were referred the following bills, submitted adverse reports thereon, 

which were agreed to; and the bills were postponed indefinitely: 

A bill (S. 2804) for the relief of :Wilbur F. Melbourne; 

A bill (S. 2256) to amend the military record of J. M. Peyton; 

A bill (H. R. 2273) for the reliefofWilliam L. Travis; 

A bill (S. 2545) granting to Stephen H. Lossee an honorable discharge 

from military service, dating as from June 28, 1864; and 

A bill (S. 2492) to correct the military record of Fountain C. Pollock. 

1\fr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom wa3 referred 

the bill (S. 704) granting a pension to Thomas Recimond, late private 
8.204 CONGR.ESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. SEPTEMBER 3, 

Company K; Fourth United States Infantry, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report ther~on. 

DISTRICT ELECTRIC WIRES. 

M.r. FARWELL, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, 

to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. R. 105) to restrain the 

erection or maintenance of overhead electric motive power and electric 

light wires in ·the cities of Washington and Georgetown, reported it 

with amendments. 

Mr. FARWELL. I am instructed by the Committee on the District 

of Columbia, to whom was referred the resolution submitted by the 

Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDliiUNDS], to report it with a recom- mendation that it do not pass. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the resolution of Mr. EDMUNDS, as follows: 

Re:wlved, That the commissioners of the District of Columbia. be, and they are hereby, directed to revoke any permit granted for the erection of overhead 

electric wires. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This resolution is reported in obedi- ence to the instructions of the Senate given when the communication 

of the commissioners of the District of Columbia was referred to the 

Committee on the District of Columbia. It is reported back with the 

recommendation that it do not pass, and it will be placed on the Calendar. 

1\Ir. ·HOAR. That is the resolution in regard to the electric wires? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There were two resolutions, one res- olution referring the communication with instructions to report a ·resolution requesting the commissioners to revoke thei.r permits. That 

is reported adversely. The joint resolution introduced by the Senator 

from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS] is reported favorablywith amendments. Mr. HOAR. There was a petition referred to that committee with an order of instruction. Is there any report on that also? 

:Mr. FARWELL. There is a report. 

Mr. SHERMAN. It seems to me that there ought to be action taken 

upon the resolution, because the company in pursuance of law, as I am advised by persons interested, are now ready and going on, and in my 

judgment they ought to go on, because as a matter of course the law 

is in force, their rights are fixed by law, and they should proceed to 

execute the duty enjoined upon them by the law. But if there is any 

doubt about it, if anyone wishes further to contest their right to go 

on, the resolution ought to be acted on promptly. Otherwise they will 

be clearly justified to-day and from this time on to proceed in the ex- ecution of the work. 

I make the statement· now, because no complaints should be made if 

they should go on in obedience to the law, with the highest respect for 

the opinion hastily expressed by the Senate the other day, unless the 

Senate desires to call the resolution up and re-enforce it by o-verruling 

its committee. 

I do not like to move to indefinitely postpone the resolutionin the 

absence of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS]. I will submit 

the motion to indefinitely postpone the resolution, but I shall not ask 

that it be acted upon now. The PRESIDENT pro iempcre. That is the recommendation of the 

committee. 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. Well, I make the motion in the Senate that the 

report of the committee be approved. 

The PRESIDENT pt·o tempore. The proper motion would be to proceed to the consideration of the report of the committee. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not like to do that in the absence of the Senator from Vermont. I will let it stand over in deference to the absence 

of the Senator from Vermont, except that I wish to submit the motion. 

Mr. VEST. I was about to observe that I participated in the debate 

when the resolution of the Senator from Vermont was adopted. I 

stated then that I did not know any of the gentlemen engaged in the 

enterprise of p-utting up these overhead electric wires. Afterwards a gentleman here with whom I have a very slight acquaintance called at 

my house and stated to me that I was entirely wrong with regard to 

the statement that there was anything dangerous in the wires, and that 

the amount of electric power to be used could be demonstrated to be 

entirely harmless either to men or to animals. I told him that had 

not been the experience of the country in regard to these electric wires, 

and that his statement astonished me very much. Without ever wav- ing had any personal interest in the matter, I have been informed that 

the amount of power necessary to be used as a motive power would 

always destroy or very seriously injure animal lile when brought in 

contact with it. He said he was prepared to bring the evidence before 

the Senate, but that the Senate refused to hear him or his associates in 

this enterprise, and had cut the whole thing off at the knees unjustly 

and in utter disregard of their rights. I assured him there was no such 

intention on my part or on that of any other Senator within my knowledge, and suggested to him that he could bring the whole matter before the Senate and reopen it by getting some Senator who is upon the 

other side of the question from myself and who believes that these over- head wires ought to be put up simply to offer a resolution rescinding 

the resolution already adopted by the Senate, and that that would re- open the whole question and it could be heard. 

A.fterwards I n!beived papers, which I have not brought to the Sen-

. 

ate to-day, fro~ an electric company, located in Philadelphia, if I am not mistaken, in which they state emphatically that wires can be put 

under-ground as economically as they can be placed overhead, and that 

without any sort of danger to anybody. I, of course, know nothing 

about these facts, but I suggest to the Senator from Ohio and to the 

Senate that with this diversity of opinion, with this antagonism of 

proof, and in the absence of the Senator from Vermont, the mover of 

the resolution, the matter ought not to be taken up to-day. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I said so, and I do not desire to take up the reso- lution; I simply wish to enter the motion to indefinitely postpone it, 

if that is in order. · 

Mr. HOAR. I think it ought to be stated what perhaps the Senator 

from Missouri, who has been, I think, absent for a portjon of the past 

two weeks, may not be aware of. A petition was presented to the Senate setting forth very fully the facts in regard to this matter. That 

has been heard on evidence before the Committee on the District of 

Columbia, and I understand their report is unanimous in regard to the 

matter of the danger. That petition, as was stated to the Senate the 

other day, is signed by persons of high standing and character in Massachusetts and states that their workmen and the manufacturers of this 

material handle it with entire ease, and that it never did more than 

raise a slight blister or something of that kind; that they are entirely 

careless about it. 

Mr. HARRIS. I will state to the Senator from Massachusetts and 

to the Senate that the committee has had the petition to which herefers under ·consideration, and on Friday the committee beard the testimony of some electrical experts. There was quite a mass of testimony 

laid before the committee in the form of affidavits and certificates of 

electrical experts. That testimony, if not now printed, will be printed 

in a day or two and will be laid before the Senate. The testimony 

taken before the committee shows conclusively to my satisfaction that 

there is no danger to human life or to animal life in the amount of electrical power necessary to propel the cars on any street railroad. But 

the testimony will be laid before the Senate in the course of a few 

days. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The report goes over under the rule. 

BILLS INTRODUCED. 

Mr. HOAR introduced a bill (S. 3507) granting a pension to Thomas 

Degnan; which was read twice by its title, and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Pensions. 

Mr. PALMER introduced a bill (S. 3508) granting a pension to Albert 

M . Edwards; which was read twice by its title, and 1·eferred to the Committee on Pensions. 

AMENDMENT TO A BILL. 

Mr. PLUMB submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 

him to the bill (H. R. 6364) to provide for the sale of land allotted 

and patented to certain members of the Black Bob band of Shawnee 

Indians, and for other purposes; which was referred to the Committee 

on Indian Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

l!IESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. T. 0. TOWLES, 

its Chief Clerk, announced that the House had passed the following 

bills; in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: 

A bill (H. R. 8) to restore Mrs. R. S. Horton upon the pension-rolls; 

A bill (H. R. 508) granting a pension to Sarah F. Hawkins; 

A bill (H. R. 2566) for the relief of Phillip Kopplin; 

A bill (H. R. 3504) for the relief of John German; 

A bill (H. R. 3801) granting a pension to Nelson J. Crook; 

A bill (H. R. 4820) granting a pension to Ellen Kelly; 

A bill (H. R. 6022) granting a pension to Smith Bodkins; 

A bill (H. R. 7516) to increase the pension of Sylvester Stearns; 

A bill (H. R. 8748) to increase the pension of Richard Jobes; 

A bill (H. R. 8993) for the relief of Shadrack W. Brown; 

A bill (H. R. 10106) to place the name of Matilda Spangler on the 

pension-roll; 

A bill (H. R. 10224) granting a pension to Elias H. Hall; 

A bill (H. R. 10256) to place the name of Lucy Wagor, of Hillsdale, 

Mich., on the pension-roll; 

A bill (H. R. 10258) to place the name of Cyrus Millins, of Ogden 

Centre, Mich., on the pension-roll; 

A bill (H. R. 10504) granting a pension to Mary Hooper; 

A bill (H. R. 10856) for pension for Eliza N. Aiken; 

A bill (H. R. 10621) for the remoml of the political disabilities of 

John H. Parker, of Virginia; 

A bill (H. R. 11021) to increase the pension of Charles Hahneman; 

A bill (H. R. 11057) granting a pension to Margaret Gray; and 

A bill (H. R. 1197) for the removal of the political disabilities of 

Henry A. Ramsay. 

The message also announced that the House had passed the follow· 

ing bills: 

A. bill (S. 2371) granting a pension to Jacob Pitner; 

A. bill (S. 2716) granting a pension to Carl M. Schwantes; 

A. bill (S. 2871) granting a pension to M.rs. Sarah J . Martin; 

A. bill (S. 3035) to grant a pension to William Thlelds; 

A bill (S. 3118) for the relief of Mathew 0. l~egan; 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD-SENATE. 8205 

A bill (S. 3178) to remove the political disabilities of William L. 

Bradford; and 

A bill (S. 3364) to provide for an American register for the steamer 

Saginaw of New York. 

The message further announced that the House had chosen Mr. JAMES 

H. BLOUNT, a Representative from the State of Georgia, Speaker p1·o 

tempore during the absence of the Speaker. 

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. 

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had signed 

the following enrolled bills; and they -were thereupon signed by the 

President pro tempore: 

A bill (S. 181~) for the relief of Susan B. Hopkins, widow of Arvah 

Hopkins, late of Tallahassee, Fla., deceased; · A bill (S. 2197) empowering and directing the Commissioner of Navigation to register and enroll as American vessels certain sailing vessels 

of foreign construction, repaired in the port of Cleveland, Ohio, and 

named the Josephine and M. C. Upper, respectively; 

A bill (S. 2S25) granting an increase of pension to Benjamin T. 

Baker; 

A bill (H. R. 2601) for the relief of the Baptist Female College of 

Lexington, Mo. ; and 

A bill (H. R. 5670) for the construction of a revenue-cutter for New 

Berne, N .. C., to replace the Tevenue-<31tter Stevens. 

CALVIN J. COWLES AND GEORGE B. HANNA. 

Mr. PASCO. I ru:;k unanimous consent that the vote by which the 

bill (S. 2970) for the relief of Calvin J. Cowles and George B. Hanna was postponed last week be reconsidered, and that the bill be placed on the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o fempm·e. The bill having been indefinitely 

postponed, that order will be reconsidered, by unanimous consent, if 

there be no objection, and the bill, with the adverse report, will be 

placed on the Calenda.r. 

CAMPAIGN WORK BY A SENATE EMPLOti. 

1\fr. VEST submitted the followin~ resolution; which was read: 

Resolved, That the Com mittee to E xamine the Several Branches of the Civil Servi ~ be instructed to inquire whether employes of the Senate, whilst re ceiving pay, and when the !:leno.te has been in session, have been engaged in 

preparing partisan campaign literature for the purpose of advancing the inter- ests ofthc Republican party in the pending canvass, and whether publication of the matter so prepared has been published by an employe of the Senate wilh 

his official character printed thereon, and what legislation is necessary to pre- v ent. a nd punish such conduct, and that' said committee report by bill or otherwise 

Mr. VEST. Ur. President, before the resolution is disposed of, I 

wish to make a few remarks in regard to it. . 

I happen to appreciate rather fully a criticism such as is contained 

in offering this resolution, and I have ofiered it very deliberately. 

Some two years ago, or possibly more, an employe of the Government 

in the Sta.te of :Missouri, a UnitedStatesdistrictattorney, was removed 

by the President of the United States because he had during a. canvass 

gone out into the State and made speeches in behalf of tl;te Democratic 

party. The attention of the President was called to the matter, and 

he immediately and very promptly, and I thought rather summarily, 

removed this gentleman and suspended his functions as a district attorney. 

I came to the city of Washington and remonstrated against that re- moval, but was informed by the President that he proposed to mete 

equal justice to both parties; that he had remoYed an attorney in the 

State of Pennsylvania, a Republican, for doing the s...-.me thing; and he ·propol)ed to make no distinction between members of his own party 

and members of the opposing organization. 

The President further stated that it had been represented to him, 

and he exhibited newspaper articles and private letters to that effect, 

that Mr. Benton, whilst the United St.:1.tes circuit court and district 

court were in session in Kansas City, where I live, had left his official 

duties and gone out for the purpose of making political speeches in behalf gf the Democratic ticket. It was within my personal knowledge 

that that statement was not true, and I immediately produced (anticipating that this charge had been made) a letter from the United States 

district judge, who was not a Democrat, stating that l'ilr. Benton had 

attended promptly to all the duties of his office, and had cleared his 

docket at that term of the court, giving his personal attention to cases for trial and to motions-pending. 

The result was that Mr. Benton was reinstated; and I was maligned, 

not to use the term blackguarded, in the Republican press from one end pf this country to another, and especially in my own State, for 

having interfered and caused the reinstatement of thi& gentleman; and 

it was stated then that the time of Mr. Benton belonged exclusively 

to the Government of the United States. 

Mr. PLUMB. Will the Senator right there, in order to preserve the 

consecutiveness of his narrative, state whether the President reinstated 

the district attorney in Pennsylvania. who belonged to the other party 

and who bad been removed at the same time with :Mr. Benton? 

Mr. VEST. I do not know. I never examined particularly into the 

facts of that case. I was attending to the interests of my own constituency, and I am not prepared to say whether he was restored or not. I do not know anything about it. 

Mr. PLUMB. Then I want to enlighten the Senator by saying that 

the President did not reinstate him; and therefore the high sense of 

propriety with which he started out, according to the statement of the 

Senator, seems to have been abandoned very early in the campaign. 

1\Ir. VEST. · My recollection is (although I do not undertake to say 

that it is entirely accurate) that the gentleman in the State of Pennsylvania went into a regular canvass, maligning the Administlration 

and Mr. Cleveland, and I say here now, openly and publicly and em- phatically, that it was indecent in an officer of this Govemment, holding a position under it and under a Democratic adminiskation, to go 

out upon the stump and malign the party at whose hands he thenheld 

official position. . 

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas. I should like to call attention to a fact 

which the Senator from Kansas seems to overlook in the statement 

made by the Senator from Missolll'i, that Mr. Benton was restored be- cause the charges made against him were shown by him to be absolutely false, and the charges against the gentleman in Pennsylvania, I 

understand, were never shown to be fals& 

:Mr. VEST. I have before me, received this morning, this book 

[exhibiting], which will be seen not to be a very small one, upon 

which in large letters is printed "Protection Echoes from the Capitol," with a very picturesque and graphic description of the Capitol 

itself and thesurrounding grounds, umbrageous fOliage, fountains, and 

spectators in large numbers, "Edited by Thomas H. McKee, Assistant Librarian of the United States Senate." 

This gentleman, and I have the very slightest personal acquaintance 

with him, is receiving an annual salary of $1,440, as the rolls of the 

Senate show. He has the unquestioned right to publish biB lucubrations, personal, political, philosophical, or otherwise, at his own ex- pense, and to distribute them or publish themfor sale anywhere within 

this country. That is 'the unquestioned right of every American citizen. But Mr. Thomas H. McKee has no right whilst he is drawing 

$1,440 as an employe of the Senate to issue this book, unfair, unjust, 

malignantly partisan in its character, garbled extracts from speeches 

of members of both Houses vf Congress, taken without their context, 

used manifestly for a partisan and unfair purpose, and to place upon 

the cover of that book, as a letter of credit to the people of the United 

States, his official character as an officer of the Senate. 

It may be said that he is still attending to his duties; that he is still 

giving his time to a reasonable extent to the discharge of his duty as an officeroftheSenate; but thatisnot the question. I was confronted 

the other day by the Senator from Maine [Mr. HALE] not now in his 

seat with the statement that Mr. Trainer, who is the secretary of the 

Library Commission, is now doing campaign work in the city of New 

York. I know nothing of the fact, but I take it that it may be said 

that Mr. Trainer is also doing his duty as secretary of the Library 

Commission and has omitted none of the functions of that office. 

What I object to specifically, and I put it to every fair-minded man, 

is that no employe · of the Senate, whether Democrat or Republican, 

has the right to issue in his official character a book such as I hold in 

my hand. 

I have not, of course, been able in the few hours that the work has 

been in my possession to go through these profuse and abundant pages. 

The Mills tariff bill came to the Senate on the 21st of July last, and 

in the short time since that bill has been here this gentleman has found 

time to make up this enormous book, for it is a large one, filled with 

partisan extracts, and not only with partisan extracts, but with atta«ks upon members of Congress who differ with him in political sen- timent. 

Take the case for instance, in the very first part of it, under the heading of ".Agriculture," on the second page: 

No. 3. Agriculture is the oldestSaid Mr. HATCH, my colleague in the other Honse, and chairman of 

tbe Committee on Agriculture, and in this gentleman's category an unfortunate Democrat. This purports to be an extract f{QUJ the speech 

ofHon. WILLIAM H. HATCH, made May 14, 1888: 

AGRICULTURE. 

No.3. Agriculture is the oldestNow interpolates this employe of the SenatefHow about hunting- and fishing, savage life?-Editor.]-

Mr. HATCH proceedsand the most honorable occupation of man. It is the foundation of our earliest; 

civilization, and its development marks the periods of the passage in the history of the world "from savagery to barbarism and from barbarism to civilization." It is to-day the foundation of all commercial and material Drogress in .this coun- try. It marks in every age of the world the steps of civilization as clearly and 

distinctly as the posts mark the miles on the road. The history of the world 

teaches us that in all ages, in every country, agriculture has borne more than its 

fair proportion of the burdens of government. 

Whether taxation has been exacted from it in kind, or under whatever system taxes have been levied, agriculture bas always borne more than its just propor• 

tion, and too often, as in our own country, bas been the prey of skillfully d~ 

vised systems of taxation for the benefit and enrichment of some favored class. 

This, 1\lr. Chairman, is particularly true in the nineteenth century and under our republican form of government 1n the year lSSS. 
8206 OONGRESSION .A.L· RECORD-SEN ATE. SEPTEl\ffiER 3, 

Now adds Mr McKee· . . I On th_e contrary I have been. very crl.r~ful, whim spoken to by post-office em- . · · ployes 111 regard to the matter of camprugn contributions to inform them that 

[Will the .Mills bill change it?-Editor.] they ~ere under n~ obligations to m~ke any such co!ltributions: that if they 

Ao-ain upon pao-e 23 of the same book he quotes from the sa.me gen- contri~uted at all It must be voluntan_I~ done on thmr part_, and that whether "" ' o • ' they <ltd so or not would make no dttlerence whatsoeve1· m respect to tberr 

tleman, who seems to be a. fa.vonte of Mr. McKee, as follows: trea!-ment by or their relations. to the postmaster, adding that they were free to 

Between 1830 and 1860 the farmers of the country more than doubled their net m regard. to such z;nattt;r Just the same 118 if they were not office-holders. 

wealth, etc, More than this, "'!b~n mqmred of, as I h~vc repeatedly been, us to whether or * " * * * * . * no~ post-office _official!! llere would contribute _for campaign purposes, I ha\·e 

If this is not true, why is it that during the same decades, and fostered and umformly replied tha.t that was a matter of_ thea o'Yn free cll'!liee; tllat I could protected by this system, the manufacturing districts have so enormously in- and would _ha_ve nothmg wllatev.er to, do Wttll !Uakmg collections or inducing 

creased in wealth? There is but one answer. Protection benefits the manu- any _subscriptwns from such employes, and that I could not permit. post-office • facturer alone, while it oppresses and levies tribute upon all other classes. ofhcmls ~o !Je approached for any such purpuse while on duty or at the post- . 

N dd ll.'l"" M K . th" b k t" t b f office bruldmg. . ow, a s iJ~r. c ee lll lS oo ~ purpor mg o e one o extracts: The only cit·cumstance that affords any basis whatever for these alien-ations 

[Why not multiply manufacturing districts ?-Editor.] co!"'cerning mys~lf, in connection with political subscriptions or collections, is . . . . ti?-Is, that some t1me ago Mr. E.l\1. Phelps, of this city, the present Illinois mem- And so on, until I could weary the Senate With excerpts l1ke those I bet· of the national Democratic committee, caJled on me and inquired what 

ha"l'"e read. course I pursued in 1884, when I was the lllinois member of that committee in 

Mr. HOAR. :May I ask the Senator if he will at some time state to the way of pr?curing subscript!on~ ~owarcf th_e nation~! com~ittee ~m~aign . . . . . . . . . . . fund. I explamecl that severnlmdtV1duals usststed me tn m.akmg soh01tatwns 

the Senate what lS the d1stinct10n In pnnmple or propnety, m h1s J udg- naming some of them, to whom I gave written authority for the purpose. n~ 

ment, between such an argument, extracts made by a person in the asked whom be could get to assist him. I ~eplied that I did no.t k.nowany bet~ 

employ of tbe Senate and the similar campaign efforts made by Sen a- ter than he. Just ~hen Mr. E. B. ~sher, ~th whom I have a h!U~ted arrange- . ' ment as to law bus mess (but who In reality bas not been prncttcmg for about 

tors themselves? _ three years, until within the last few weeks), came into tllo I"Oom in wllich .Mr. 

1\fr. VEST. A Senator of the United States expresses his opinions, Phelps .and myself were in conv~rsatio?· He re~red ~vithin a. few.~oments, 

and he is sent here by his constituents to honestly do so. ltfr. JI.IcKee when his name was barely ~enhon~d m connection wJt!1 the mq1;11ries made • . • . . by Mr. Phelps. Afterward 1t transpued that 1\Ir. Phelps mduced him to solicit IS not hued by tn.e Senate of the Uruted Stn.tes to prepare camp::ugn subscriptions for the national Democratic committee, and still later it seems 

literature. I should insult the intelligence of every man here or that he issued n. few invitations to post-office t;mployes to call at his office, and 

elsewhere if I went further in this distinction. Is it possible that the I have learne~ ~hat he procured a. fe~ subscriptiOns from such employes, but . . . . only a few. 'Ibts was done holly without my knowledge or consent. I have 

Senator from Massachusett:.s can JUSti1y a thmg of th1s sort? It would not been at the law office occupied by 1\Ir. Esher fot· nearly three years (during 

turn every employe of the Senate into a parilian for one of the respect- all of which time I have attended strictly to post-office b~siness), nnd I have 

ive parties now struggling for supremacy in this Government. Jt has n_o tontrol.whatever over~rr. Esher's movements, nor am. I many way respon· 

b do · th h. to ~ th. G t Th' . tb fi t Sib.e for his conduct. He IS a free man, and acted on h1s own responsibility never een ne In e IS ry of e overnmen . IS IS e I'S and that of Mr. Phelps. 

instance I have ever known jn which a work of this sort, malignan't Ho'Y~vet;. after ~ome criticism was ~ade in a Republ~can newspaper in regard 

and partisan in every line of It with garbled extracts unfair UDJ. ust to to sohe~tatJonil bemg ~ade by Mr. Esnet·, he volunt&!JI_y prol?ose_d to .drop the . ' . • . '. . . ' whole matter, and bemg requested so to do by Mr. 'Vllliam Ritchie (w1th whom 

the Democratic party, has been sent forth With unofficial mdoTSement he also had some business an-angement) and by myself, he complied, and hilS 

upon it, for it is nothina .else-a letter of credit with the official char· sin~e,_as he informs me, refused to make solicitations, or even to receive subt f th h o 11 ted "t h d "t scriphons. ac er 0 e person W o CO a .1 or W 0 prepare 1 • It may be added in this connection that .Mr. Esher informs me that he ad· 

I have no doubt that I am domg a very great personal favor to :Mr. vised each and every post-office employe whom he approached in asking sub-

:ltlcKee in advertising his book, and it will give it probably a larger cir- scription~ that the postmaste~ knew and would know n~thing ?f the mat!er, 

cub.tion throuahout the country He is welcome to the benefit of such and that It would ~ake no difference whatever 118 to their standmg as offiCials . "" ·. . whether they cont.nbuted or not. · an advertisement as he now receives; but I do most emphatically pro- I hRve explaiped thus in detail in order that you may understand the entire 

test against this practice. I call attention to it because the Demo- situation, ~;o ~s to be able. to ref~te the charges if it be needful so to do. 

era tic party has been taunted and reviled upon this floor for havin" I am, with much respect, smcerely, yours, etc., 

l d h · · 1 f · ·1 · ~ d · th l ·"" S. CORNING JUDD, Postmaster tramp e u:pon t e pnnClp es o ?tVI_ -serviCe re.lorm, an . m e C ass1c P. S.-I write to you in this matter because, according to the telegraphic dislangnage of the Senator from IllmOis [Mr. CULLOM] bemg a sham, a patches,_ you made some ve1·y appropriate remarks in the Senate on yesterday 

fraud, and a. pretense. • concermng Senator CULLOM's stat-ement. 

• That brings me, Mr. President, to a few remarks I desire to submitJ Hon. GEORGE G. VEST, s. c. J . 

asH is a cognate subject, in regard to what was stated in the Senate on United States Se11ato1·, Washington, D. C. 

last Friday. It was said then by the Senator from Illinois [1\fr. CUL- 1\!r. VEST. It is proper for me to state that I have no acquaintance 

LOM] and by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON], when I called at- with 1\Ir. Judd, and I have had no communication with him except 

tention to the fact that a. pension examiner had been sent from the that letter. After reading in the RECORD the statement of the reporter 

Stn.te of :Missouri to illinois to perform campaign service in the year of the Chicago Tribune a.s to the manner in which he obtained what 

1884, that he was entitled to thirty days' leave of absence wit.h pay, purports to be his information, after his admission that he deliberately 

and the Senator from illinois claimed that in his judgment he had only lied to this man Esher, that he misrepresented his own character, that 

obtained the statuto-ry right of this gentleman when he got twenty-three he afterwards went in his proper character and then lied to him again 

days' service. According to the record he was granted twenty-three by stating and making the impression that he would not publish what 

days' leave of absence withpa.yfrom0ctober6andninedayswithoutpay had occurred in the morning, but says that he had already put it in 

from October 29, 1884. This record shows that the gentleman was ap- type, and therefore he could very saieJy say that he would not publish 

pointed in July, 1884. In October, less than three months after~ards, it in the future, I was willing that the public should pass upon the 

he received those twenty-threedays' leave of absence, and in a few days eredibility of that witness. 

afterwaTds nine days' leave. At that very time a. regulation of the In- I have simply to say in conclusion that if the postmaster at Chicago 

terior Department was in force, made by the Senator from Colorado bas violated the civil-service law, let the committee raised at the in-

[l'tir. TELLER] when Secretary of the Interior, and that regulation is stance of the distinguished Senator from MAine [Mr. HALE], of which 

in the following language: he is chairman, investigate that post-office, and if that man has been 

Regula.tion 14. Employes who have been in thQService of the Dep:u·tmentless guilty of prostituting his official po3ition for the purpose of blackmailthan one year- jng his employes, no Senator in this body will more cheerfully indorse 

And this gentleman had only been in the Department three months- his removal and his public disgrace. 

may be granted leave at the rate of two and one-half days for each month of Mr. CULLO~I. Mr. President, so far as the reference of the Senc'l,-

service, and no more. tor from Missouri to me again is concerned I have· nothing more to say 

That was the order of January 1, 1884; and he was entitled under about it. He seems to have a kind of nightmare on that subject, and 

that regulation to seven and a half days' leave of absence and no more I am willing to let him rest there. 

at the time he received twenty-three days' le..we of absence with pay As to the charges against M:r. McKee, I wish to say that I have 

in October, 1884. known him for some time, and I recognize him as a gentleman of char-

! have received since that debate from the postmaster at Chicago a acter, a gentleman who strictly attends to his duties as charged upon 

letter which, in justice to him, I ask the Secretary to read. him by the Senate; and if there is any Senator here who can point to 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The letter will be read, if there be a single instance where that gentleman has failed to discharge his duty no objection. in waiting upon the Senate and furnishing documents and what not, 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: then I should like to have him do so. 

CHICAGO POST-OFFICE, 0FFTCE OF THE PoSTJIIASTER, 

Chicago, lU., Septembe-r 1, 1888. 

DEAR SENATOR: I seB by the telegraphic dispatches from 'Vashington, pub--

li!lhed in this morning's papers, that Senator CULLOM, of this State, in some re- marks mad~ in t.he Senate, for political effect, and in seeking to create the impression thabDemocratsare now a.s bad as the Republicans were when in power in forcing contribution!! from Government officials for political purposes, charged in subst-ance U1at I, as postmaster of Chicago, by collusion with my law part- ner, h:l.ve been engaged in making collections of post-office employes here for 

Democratic campaign pll.l'poses. Permit me to-assure you, Senator, that this charge iswhoily untrue. Senator 

CULLOM has evidently been misled by the statement of some vicious and reck- less newspaper scribbler. I have- had no eonnection what-ever with t.be solicitation of subscriptions or with inviting contributions from post-office or other 

Government employes, either for political or other purposes. 

I undertake to say that it is none of the business of the Senate whether 

that gentleman saw proper to put in his odd hours, either during the 

day or at night; in preparing a book, even though that book may be in 

favor of protecting American-labor and American industry. So far as 

I am concerned, I think he has done a good piece of work, and I think 

it will give some trouble to our Democratic friends to answer the ex- tracts that are taken from speeches made by honorable Senators and by 

Representatives in the other branch. That is all I have to say about 

Mr. McKee. · Tow, the Senator from Missouri comes back to the Cbicago postoffice, and he is tremendously exercised because, forsooth, the reporter 

of the Chicago Tribune happened to get a card and took advantage of 
I 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8207 

it, and went in there and found ont what was going on in the office of 

the gentleman who happens to hold the post-office in Chicago, and un- covered the scheme tlJat was carried on for the purpose of forcing out 

of the employes of the post-office there money to be handed over to the 

national committee to secure the re-election of the present President 

of the United States. ' 

The Senator is also tremendously exercised because of that long interview which was read from the Chicago Tribune, and he charged that 

he ·would as lief think of having Tom ~aine prea~h to a Christian 

congregation as to have a Republican interview introduced here in the 

Senate of the United ~tates. 

I wish· to give the Senator some Democratic literature. I sup'pose 

he will not charge that the Chicago Times is a Republican or even a Mugwump paper. I have understood it to be time out of mind not only a Democratic paper, but one of the very bitterest kind, like the postmaster at Chicago. I have had the privilege of knowing that distinguished gentleman a good many years. I know him personally. I 

knew him when he lived dowp_ in the country as a country lawyer, and 

' ' I knew him when he was one of the most venomous Copperheads that 

there was in the State of Illinois. Now, sir, I want an article from 

the Times read, and also one from the Chicago Globe, which is also a Democratic paper and indorsed as such by another Democratic paper 

in another State. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

[Chicago Times, Friday, August 2!, 1888.] 

MR. JUDD'S BLUNDER. 

The Times bas been Just and merciful to l\Ir. Postmaster Judd. When he has b een wantonly assailed it has defended him. When hisremova.lhasbeen urged 

by interested parties it has pointed out the undesirability of such a course. But the Times htts no words of apology or defense for the postmast-er's indirect method of aiding the campaign fund of his party by violation of the spirit of the civil-service Jaw. In this matter the devil has been beaten around the stump. The postmaster has tolerated the application of moral duress to em- ployes of the office in order to compel their contribution to campaign funds. Under these circumstances contributions are not voluntary. It is no excuse to plead that the practice was established under another administration. · · l\Ir. Judd's zeal for his party outruns his sense of justice and fairness when he points out that the sand-bagging is so nicely caLculated as not to otl'end against the letter of the law. The excuse is unwo-rthy an official of l\1r. Judd's high character. TAKE IN HIS SIGN. 

In the daily law report the fact is recorded that a suit was commenced by 

Judd, Ritchie & Esher. Mr. Esher is the young man who, having occupied a place in the Chicago post-office abolished as a sinecure, has been engaged in in- ten'iewing employes of the post-office regarding their contribution to the Dem- ocratic campaign fund. Mr. Esher is provided with a list of all employes and the salaries paid them, and is conducting the " important'' busines3 of fleecing them for party purposes. Mr. Judd explains this outrage with the remark that he has merely a nominal relation with Esher, who, having no relation to the public service, is not amenable under the law prohibiting assessments upon civil servants for political purposes. If l\Ir. ·Judd has no connection with Mr. Esller let him take in his law sign. 

If the employes of the post-office wish t-o devote some portion of their slender salaries to campaign purposes they will have no difficulty in ascertaining the fact for themselves and in finding the headquarters where such favors are re- ceived. The Esber persuasion office had better be shut up instanter. 

[Indorsement of the Globe as a Democratic paper.l 

JUST SO. 

The Michigan Democrat says that he has " no hesitation in commending the Chicago Globe fully and unsparingly, because," he says: •· Tllis is the only genuine unalloyed Democratic paper in Chicago, and is the paper Democrats like to get hold of. It is scholarly and fair, and is delivered in Sturgis for 12 cents per week." . It is delivered in all other places at the same price. which is less than one- half its value. Because its Democracy is the very best quality that is found on any market. There is nothing" snide" in it. And this is the reason why it is "the paper that Democrats like to get hold of." 

[The Chicago Globe, August 23, 1888.] 

A STUPID BLUNDER. 

• The civil-service-reform act of1883 was not meant to be a sham. It was di- rected a.gainstthe vicious practice of using the public service and servants as instrumentalities of partisan purposes. This was the central idea in which it originated Upon this basis it wa.s advocated and enacted. It positively for- bade any asses ments upon the stipends of public servants, and made it a pun- ishable misdemeanor for any person being in the public service to soli{lit or re- ceive evep a. perfectly voluntary""contribution from another public servant. If it did not in terms forbid any public servant to make a. voluntary contribution to party funds, it was because some squeamish legislators believed, or pre- tended to believe, that such a. prohibition would encroach upon the limits of personal liberty. But a. voluntary contribution is one that is initiated by the volition of the contributor, a.nd not by the suggestion of a party agent that it is "a matter of importance" that a voluntary contribution be made. Any contribution made upon such a suggestion the spirit and reason of the law for- bid; otherwise there is no restraint upon an easy evasion of it, which would stnmp the act as a legislative cheat and fraud. ~ 

It is unfortunate, therefore, that so indiscreet a person as Mr. Edward B. Esher should have been authorized by any representative of the national Democratic committee to 1·eceive subscriptions to a." campaign fund." It is unfortunate because 1\Ir. Esber stands (nomina.Uy, at all events) in a professional relation to Postmaster' Judd, nnd because he was, until three or four months back, one of Mr. Judd's subordinates in the post-office of this city; and, more than all else, because he has shown alack of judgment in sending meBBages to employes in the public service requesting them to "call and see" him uon a matter of im- portance," the matter being a solicitation of a contribution from each of them to the party" campaign fund." 

Conced ing to him all the strength of his defensive plea that he is" assessing 

nobody," that every person in the civil service who may receive his pecu- liar invitation to call and see him is at-" perfect liberty to give or not, as he may feel disposed," and that he is making "this collection" {the words are gi>en as his own) in a. way different to tha t which was pursued by the B.laine party collectors four years ogo, it still remains true that the proceeding is re- pugnant to the spirit and reason of the law, because it includes an attempt to make such collections from persons in the civil service, under a form of words 

which, though not a. menace, is a. suggestion to the mind of su?h persons of a risk that may be incurred by actmg as they would have acted If they had not received Mr. Esher's invitation to call and see him "on a. matter of importance.'' 

The whole matter is reducible to a single point. The proceeding of Mr. Esher is a solicitation by a party agent of" voluntary contributions" to a party fund from attaches of the civil service. Such a proceeding is offensive to the spirit and reason of the reform act. It is an offense, therefore, against the moral standard of the Democratic pat·ty. It is reprehensible, therefore, and shonld be discontinued by peremptory order at once. Its continuance certB.in.ly will do more harm than all the money that post-office clerks and letter-can-iers may contribute can repair. In the name of morality, liberty, and justice, the only solid bases of ,Democracy, let this blunder be stopped. · 

:M:r. CULLOU. Before the Senator talks any more about the Chicago post-office he had better consult with his Democratic friends in 

that city. That is all the advice I have to give him on that subject. 

Apro:J?OS to the articles which have been read in reference to the 

conduct of the public business in Chicago, I think a paragraph from 

the letter of acceptance of the Presidential nomination four years ago, 

written by the present'President, ought to be put in the RECORD also as good· doctrine, and also an extract from a speech by Judge Thurm::J,n, 

the Democratic candid&te for Vice-President. I ask that they be read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

[Mr. Cleveland's letter of acceptance in 188-i.] 

When we consider the patronage of this great office, the allurements of power, the temptation to retain public place once gained, and, more than all, the avail- ability a party finds in an incumbent whom a horde of office-holders, with a zeal born of benefits received and fostered by the hope of favors yet to come, stand ready to aid with money and trained political service, we recognize in the eligibility of the President fur re-election a most serious danger to that calm., 

deliberate, and intelligent action which must characterize government by the people. 

[Thurman in 1872.] 

1\'Iy friends, you will never have any genuine reform in the civil service until you adopt the one-term principle in reference to the Presidency. So long as the incumbent can hope for a second term he will use the immense patronage of the Government to procure his renomination and secure his re-election. 

Mr. PLUUB. I only want to make a remark or two about this matter. The district attorney in Missouri, Mr. Benton, is fortunate in 

having a very powerful advocate in the person of my friend the Senator from that State. The Pennsylvania district attorney, Mr. Stone, 

did not have any such advocate, and the very natural result ensued 

that the President set out, like an old farmer going to mill with a peck 

of meal in one end of the bag and a stone in the other, and announced 

with a great flourish-whether he dia it with or without a wink the 

Senator did not say-that he intended to make this a square thing between the two parties, and having removed a Republican he was going 

to remove a Democrat. He ended it up by yielding to the blandishments of my friend from Missouri, by restoring :M:r. Benton to office, 

but he did not perform that service for Mr. Stone. It is suggested by 

the Senator fr::Jm Arkansas that :Mr. Benton had made out a good case by showing that the charges against him were false. No one who 

knows the political faith of my friend from Missouri and the gteat 

eloquence with which he expresses ·Democratic sentiments can doubt 

that he made a case where :Mr. Stone could not possibly make one. But, Mr. President~ nobody cares anything about these matters in 

themselves. The Senator from Mi.sf;ouri did not object to Mr. McKee 

doing what he has done. He would not object to one of the employes 

of the Senate of the Democratic persuasion, of whom there are anum- ber, doing the same thing, as a matter of principle. The wrong with 

him is the fact that the Republicans are able to show the difference 

between Democratic professions and Democratic practice, and that is 

all there is of it. 

I d() not care about the present Democratic candidate · for President 

having given $10,000 to the Democratic campaign fund, coupled with 

the assurance of the person who is nearest to him that he has always 

done that thing ever since he has been a Democratic office-holder. I 

do not object to that. I do not object to it even if it is coupled with 

the insinuation from authoritative sources that that example should 

be followed by all the officials all over the country. But I do object 

to the sniveling and cantin~ hypocrisy which accompanies this whole 

performance. That is what I object to, and that is the only Republican objection to it. It is because this Administration pretends to be 

holier than any other administration has been; it is because it says it 

is not doing these very things which it is doing. That is what we challenge and that is the whole thing. 

The Senator from Missouri said the other day that he thanked the 

Lord he was not a Mugwump. He knows what that means. He 

knows the term is used to designate a class of people who believe in a non-partisan service, or claim so to believe; and therefore he means that he is not a civil-service reformer, and he means that he believes 

that "to the victors belong the spoils;" and so when he comes in 

here and arraigns Mr. McKee for this book and gives it this advertisement, which but for him it would not have, he simply objects that the 

Republicans are doing that which he knows the Democrats are doing, 

and the point of his objection is that he knows the Democratic Admin_-

istration can be convicted of entire insincerity. That is the milk in 

the cocoa-nut. Nobody is deceived by all this outcry. The country 

knows it and thoroughly understands that this Administration while 

professing one thing has done anotlaer, and if it is condemned it JVill 

not be because it has turned out Republicans and put in Democrats, as 
82 .. 08- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. SEPTEJ\IBER 3, 

the Republican party expected it would do; but it is because, while it 

has pretended that it did not do it, it has been cleaning the service of 

· every Republican on whom it could put its hands. 

Mr. VEST. Mr. President, the Senator from Kansas certainly does 

me injustice when he says that I would not condemn a similar action 

on the part of a Democratic employe ou this side as that of which Mr. 

McKee has been guilty. I do not object to Mr. McKee putting in his 

odd hours in furnishing literature to the party of which he is no doubt 

an honest member; I do not object to his sitting up at nights and giving his time to the political service ·of that organization; but I do object to his sending out to the people of the United States that partisan 

and unfair and false document with his official character stamped upon 

it, and if any Democratic employe of the Senate should do it I would 

vote to put him out of office, and I would demand it as a Democratic 

Senator. 

- I am a Demo_crat; I am proud of it; I could not be anything elseand 

never expect to be anything else; but I am not a Mugwump, and I do not 

believe that "to the victorsbelongthe spoils" in the acceptationgiven 

to that phrase generally in the partisan press of the country. I believe 

that, other thin~ being equal, a Democrat should be put in office un-

- der a Democratic administration and a Republican under a Republican 

administration; and I would as soon put the soldiers of another army 

on my picket-line as to expect Republicans to guard well the interests 

of the Democratic party when in office. 

The Senator says that this AdminiStration has professed one thing 

and done another. Mr. President, I wash no dirty linen in public. I 

am loyal to my party and its convictions, and I ask no quarter and 

give none. I ask no favors. If the Republicans can beat us in this 

contest fairly, no man will accept the result in a more manly spirit 

than myself; but I, for one, shall leave nothing undone that a gentleman can do to defeat them, and when the administration pa-sses into 

other hands, if it does, I shall not be found whining and a.sking favors 

and soliciting ;1lms from a Republican administration. I will do, as 

I have always done, accept the fate of war honestly and fairly, and 

with such equanimity as my temperament will admit. But I deny 

that this Administration has acted upon the principle that "to the 

victors belong the spoils.'' 

Sir, to-day the Departments in this city outside the classified service 

are filled with Republicans. To-day in the Treasury Department outside of the classified service, $248,000 is paid to Hepublicans and $206,-

000 to Democrats. All over this country to-day Republicans are in 

office outside of the classified civil service and inside of that service. 

Thereare not in the Departments here, out of two thousand employes 

in some of them, two dozen Democrats. When I go to-day into a bureauofsome of these Departments to see the head ofit, who is aDemocrat, I am compelled to whisper to him for fear the Republican clerks 

shall hear what I say in regard to my party and in regard to its interests; yet that Senator tells us that this Administration has acted upon 

the principle that "to the victors belong the spoils!" 

Mr. PLUMB. Allow me to ask the Senator a question which will 

enable him to draw a still finer distinction than he has drawn. What 

business has he to be talking about the Democratic party and Democratic interests to the head of a bureau in office hours? It seems that 

that discounts 1lfr. McKee very considerably. 

Mr. VEST. When I go to the head of a bureau in regard to an appointment in that bureau, I do not choose to take into my confidence 

the clerical force of that entire bureau when I know perfectly well that 

they belong to the opposite party. The civil-service law, which I am 

sorry to say I voted for after voting for amendments which would have 

put it upon a just and equitable basis, putting in one-half Democrats 

and one-half Republicans, retained in office the entll:e corps of old 

moss-backed radical officials who have been as.<;essed year after year to 

furnish the campaign fun_d of the Republican party; and they are in 

office to-day, holding office to-day, and if Cleveland is defeated a shout 

of exultation will f!:O up from the office-holders in this city such as has 

never been heard before except from the throats of a great army in the 

hour of a victory. They are receiving their salaries under a Democratic administration an<! praying day and night for its deieat; and yet 

we are told that the doctrine that "to the victors belong the spoils" 

has obtained under this Administration against its pretensions. Why, 

Mr. President, when I think of the condition of the public service of 

this country to-day, so far as patronage is concerned under a Democratic 

administration, I am inclined always to refer to that historic expression of Lord Clive when arraigned before the House of Lords in England on the charge that he had, when governor-general of India, taken 

from the native princes largesses to a considerable amount after he had 

overthrown with the English troops their territories, when he broke 

forth spontaneously with the honest exclamation "By God, gentlemen, 

I wonder at my own moderation! '' 

Mr. PLUMB. The Senator certainly does not apply that remark to 

himself. · 

Mr. VEST. I apply it to the fact that we have permitted Republicans to remain in office all over this country from one end of it to the 

other, and the return we get is taunts and abuse such as we have had 

to--day from the Senator from Kansas. We are told, '' Oh, yes, all 

this is a fraud and a sham and a pretense," when the bureaus are filled 

with Republicans; when in the Treasmy Department alone forty thousand odd dollars more are drawn in the way of salaries by Republicans 

outside of the classified service than by Democrats four years after 

the Administration has gone into power. When Mr. Cleveland has 

subjected himself to the criticism of his own party and to the assaults 

of the opposite party, and has attempted honestly and fairly to carry 

out what he believes to be \):le spirit and essence of the law and regulations of the civil service, he is repaid by such attacks as we have 

heard in this Chamber to-day. 

Since the Senator from Illinois has been reading newspaper extracts, 

which he says come from Democratic papers, I must confess that the 

condition of newspapers in the city of Chicago is such that I have never 

been able to tell a Republican newspaper therefrom a Democratic paper. 

I am in that sort of nebulous condition that if I were called upon to 

pick out a Democratic paper in Chicago I could not do it, even if I were 

upon oath. But the Senator read from the Chicago Times. I go to the 

official authority on newspapers, which is the American Newspaper 

Directory for 1887, and I find that the Times is put down there: ''The 

Times; every morning and weekly, Wednesday; Independent." 

Mr. PLUMB.· But it is supporting Ur. Cleveland. 

Mr. VEST. Yes, Mr. President,andsoisGeorgeWilliamCurtissupporting him, but I take it he would consider it a personal insult to be 

called a Democrat. The logic of my friend from Kansas is defective 

when applied to re.<;ults. The New York Times is supporting Mr. 

Cleveland. For me to go into the arcana of these newspaper offices 

and find out the personal and political motives which control their 

action would be to expect me to perform a feat far above the average 

of any mortal man. All I know is that the statement made by the 

Senator from Kansas that this Administration has acted upon the principle that ''to the victors belong the spoils'' is contradicted in every 

State and in every Congressional district of this broad land; and that 

is all I propose to say upon that. 

Mr. PLUMB. Only a word. The Senator from Missouri very carsfully avoided any expression as to what had been going on outside of 

the city of Washington, but it has been the constant claim of the Democratic party to show how merciful they have been, though I never heard 

any one before praise that party for restraining themselves like Lord 

Clive, that they did not turn upside down the Departments in Washington. During the twenty-odd years of Repu"Qlican administration 

those Department.s had come to be filled by persons who were to a very 

large extent no more Republicans, o:r I might say no more Democrats 

than if no such parties existed. In addition to that, plenty of Senators 

on the other side of the Chamber and plenty of members of that party 

serving in the House of Representatives found ways to get men of their 

own political faith into place under Republican administrations. I will 

venture to say that the number of persons in the Departments who are 

actively Republicans to-day and will vote the Republican ticket thiB 

year is less than the number of those people who would have voted the 

Democratic ticket under 1\lr. Arthur. 

But, notwithstanding, the President of the United States knew perfectly well that he could not unchain the Democratic tiger for the :fi.tst 

four years with entire safety; he had to some extent observed the public sentiment and was too sensible not to know that he could not break 

up the entire service during those four years and expect to be re-elected. 

In order to carry that on he had to keep in a very large proportion of 

Republicans. I say that without any special reflection upon the character of Democratic employes, although if one or two Senators were 

present who are now absent I could mention some examples of persons 

whom they recommended to office who were obliged to be excluded 

from the public service because they conJd not write or speak the En-

.glish language correctly or anything near it. Therefore a certain retention was necessary in the process of weeding out, but the process of 

weeding out has gone on until the Senator can now go to the head of 

every bureau without bringing himself into offensive contact with Republicans. But I would like to know what it is that has to be told 

privately to the head of a bureau in one of the Departments at Washington. I would like to know the ground ·of complaint that the Senator makes that he could not speak privately on party matters to the 

head of a bureau. I did not know before that these buxeaus were here 

for the purpose of transacting private business. I supposed that they 

were here for the purpose of transacting public business. All that they 

have a right to transact goes upon the files, which are public property 

and open, under proper circumstances, to public inspection; and if the 

Senator goes there to speak privately about these things, he is do·ing 

that which, in my judgment, he has no business to do, and Eomething 

which I think I can say that under former administrations was not 

done and was not necessary to be done. 

So the complaint after all is that the Senator is afraid to expose these 

private matters to the ears of public employes. But that is not the 

question. The question after all and what is now his objection is that 

men in the public service are performing duties, are transacting matters that are pertinent to the opposite party. I thought at first when 

I saw the document the Senator exhibited this morning that Mr. UcKee had been guilty of impropriety in identifying himself with it as 
.. ·, 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- ' SENATE. 8209 

assistant librarian of the Senate, but that was disposed of in a measure when I considered that the Librarian of Congress publishes anal- manac. ' 

Mr. VEST. Not a partisan one. 

Mr. PLUMB. That does not make any difference. He publishes an almanac on the title-page of which he identifies himself as the Librarian of Congress for the purpose of giving circulation and currency 

and authenticity to the publication. That evidently was the purpose 

of Mr . .McKee. He wanted to show that the publication was compiled 

under such auspices as could be relied upon as showing it to be correct. 

But suppose the Speaker of the House ofRepresentative.'l should, as he mjght properly do, publish a work on the tariff, a manual we will 

say, would he be likely to put his name on the title-page as JOHN GRIFFIN CARLISLE, or would be add to it '

1 Speaker of the House of Representatives?" I am advised that he.has just published an article in 

a magazine on that very subject, over his own name. The currency it 

gets grows out of his official position. 

Mr. VEST. I think the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES] 

made that suggestion to the Senator from Kansas. Does the Senator 

from Kansas mean to say that Mr. CARLISLE ever published in a magazine an article and signed himself " JOHN G. CARLISLE, Speaker of 

the House of Representatives?" 

Mr. DAWES. There is no name, I think. ~rr. VEST. That is a very different thing. 

Mr. PLUMB. But the currency it gets grows out of the (act that 

he is Speaker of the House of Representatives. It did not add anything 

in his ca.-.e because he was a well-known man, but be might properly 

have put that on the title-page of the book, and Mr. RoGER Q. MILLS 

might· advertise himself while he is doing partisan service running · around the country and being introduced to his audiences no doubt as 

being chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 

Representatives, and his speeches get currency as such. 

But, Mr. President, this Administration soon tired of its virtue. It 

is thoroughly understood, and it is susceptible of proof, that clerks have 

been detailed in the Pension Office to write vindications for publication of the President's vetoes. The head of that bureau himself, ac- cording to a charge which has been made and I believe truly, certainly 

not denied, has spent more than one-half of the last year away f1·om his 

duties perambulating around the country. The Commissioner of the 

General Land Office has bad prepared and put in circulation a docu_- ment bearing his official signature: containing, as I think, the grossest 

possible falsehood. Of that I do not complain, however. Over his 

official signature there has been printed at Government expense n. circular as a Democratic campaign document, a statement in regard to the 

lands recovered to the public domain by this A-dministration. It is 

signed '

1 S. 1\f. St-ockslager, Commissioner of the General Land Office." 

If it werenotthati may have occasion todoitsome days later, !should 

read now that circular for the purpose of showing that at the Govern-

-ment expense a document of that kind is being circulated. 

It is just as well to have a fair understanding about these matters. 

Within a certain limitation these things have always been done, but it 

is not for a Democratic administration, that treats the public service 

no~ like a public trust but like a private snap, to complain at this late 

hour with no greater foundation than that which the Senator from 1\fissouri bas been able to nnd. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present con· 

sideration of the resolution? 

Mr. PLUMB. Let it go over, Mr. President. , The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution will lie over until tomorrow and be printed. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore laid before the Senate a letter of the 

Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting schedules of claims allowed by 

the Auditor of the Treasury for the Post-Office Department since the 

allowance of those embraced in House Executive Document No. 31, of 

the present session, on account of compensation of postmasters readjus ted under the act of March 3, 1883. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The communication will lie on the 

table. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Let it be referred to the Committee on Appropriations and printed. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1·e. That reference will be made. Does 

the Senator desire that the document be _printed? The exhibits are 

voluminous. 

Mr. COCKRELL. It is just alistofnames. Itisadocumentwhich 

is generally printed. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The order to print will be made, if 

there be no objection. 

" PERSONAL EXPLANATION-CANADIAN HAY CLAIMS. 

Mr. HOAR. I ask the attention of the Senate for a moment. I re- ceived some six or eight weeks ago a letter which I send to the d_esk 

and desire the Secretary to read. 

XIX-51~ 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

ST. JoHN'S, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, CANADA, August 2, 1888. 

HoN. Srn: The inclosed document, whil)h I take the liberty of mailing you, speaks .for itself. In these times of agitation on matters concerning the United 

States and England and English colonies, would it not be a propitious one to bring these hay claims forward? A settlement has been attempted several 

times, but to no avail. Hon. Mr. Fairchild knows all the points of the case, and he can furnish you all required information. It is a just reclamation, and 

if you can get it paid I can assure you that the support I could get tJ:om Canadians in the United States in favor of your party in the coming electiOn would 

be felt. You can also name your conditions. The amount involved is about 

1.000,000, and claimants whom I control are willing to make a good allowance 

for the trouble and work necessary. Yours, truly, CHAS. ARPIN. Hon. Senator HoAR, Washi11gton, D. C. 

Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, I suppose every person in the Senate 

1·eceives occasionally letters of that sort from men who are ignorant as they are base, and probably treats them with silent contempt. I should 

have done the same. I disli,k:e very much to do anything that seems like an exhibition of virtue on sueh a subject; but it has occurred to 

me that the character of the claim made it probable that the man who 

wrote this letter might be imposing upon the confidence.of a ~nsiderable number of poor persons; and therefore, on consultatiOn w1th two or three experienced members of the Senate, the Senator from Varmont 

[Mr. ED~UNDS] among the rest, I thought it was best to make inquiry 

into the character of the writer; and I have learned that he is a person 

widely known in Canada, where he lived, formerly a candidate for the 

Canadian Parliament, very nearly elected, a man of considerable intelligence and good address. It bas seemed to me, therefore, proper 

that the communication should be put on t.he files of the Senate, so that 

if these claims are ever pressed they should be attended with the history of this corrupt effort on the _part of the man who bas them in 

charge. 

I move that the letter be put upon the files of the Senate. 

The PRESIDENT 1J1·o te-mpo1·e. The Senator from .M:a...~chusetts 

asks--

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. I should like to hear that letter read again. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempo1:e. It will be read again if the Senator 

desires. 

The Chief Clerk read the letter. 

Mr. RIDDLEBERGEH. Before that--

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The Senator will pardon the Chair one moment. Under the roles of the Senate the Chair thinks this 

communica.tion, being signed by a subject of a. foreign power and not 

transmitted by the President of the United States, can not be placed 

on the Dies of the Senate. 

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. I merely wish to state, before that paper is 

placed upon the files of the Senate, that I read this. morning in a num- ber of newspapers that this trans-Atlantic policy, as it was called, was one tbat England did not propose to indorse, and among other suggestions was one that behind Cn.nada were English gunboats. I want to 

reply to that from the United States Senate that we have men behind our guns and no slaves and no subjects. 

Mr. HOAR. This is not presented as a petition to the Senate; itis a private letter to me; and it seems to me that by unanimous consent 

the Senate may order it to be put on file. I think the original document ought to be where it can be referred to and not kept in my custody when the claims are presented in two or three years. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. - The rule on the subject will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the following clause from the fourth paragraph 

of Rule VII: 

But no petition or memorial or other paper signed b)r citizens or subjects of a foreign power shall be received, unless the same be transmitted to tht: Senate by 

the President. 

Mr. HOAR. I ask unanimous consent that that be waived. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetis 

asks unanimous consent that the rule may be suspended and that this 

paper may be placed on the files of the Senate. The Chair hears no 

objection. 

PRINTING OF FISHERIES TREATY DEBATE. 

Mr. BUTLER submitted the following resolution, which was-referred 

to the Committee on Printing: 

Resolved, That 10,000 copies of the debates and proceedings on the fisheries 

treaty, together with the mes.<;age of the President transmitting the same to Congress, and the reports of the majority and minority of the Committ-ee on Foreign Relations be printed for the use of Congress. 

JOHN WILLIAMS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there-be no further morning business, the first bill on the Calendar under Rule VIII will be stated. 

The bill (S. 1508) for the relief of J obn Williams was announced as 

first in order. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Claims with an amendment. 

Mr. DOLPH. Let that bill go over. 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. The bill will be passed ovC\r to the 

Calendar, under Rule IX. 
8210 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. SEPTEMBER 3, 

A. C. BRADFORD. 

The bill (H. R. 649) for the relief of A. C. Bradford was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

It provides for the paymenj; to A. C. Bradford, late a judge of the 

thirteenth judicial district in the State of California, of $487.55, which sum was assessed as the income tax and was collected from and paid 

by him to the Government of the United States upon his salary as district judge for the years 1868 and 1869, such tax having been declared 

illegal and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United 

States. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

HOG ISLAND LIGHT-HOUSE, VIRGINIA. 

The bill (H. R. 5700) to facilitate the transportation of life-saving 

and light-house supplies at Hog Island, Virginia, was considered as in 

Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce with an amendment to add at the end of the bill the following: 

And for the purposes of this act the sum of 55,000, or so much thereof as may be neces..o;ary, is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 

· So as to make the bill read: 

That there be erected at the landing near the Hog Island light-house, in Vir- ginia, a wharf, and that a. road from the same to the said light-house and life- saving station be built, to facilitate the transportation of supplies: PrCYVided, That the same shall not cost more than 85,000; and for the purposes of this act the sum of 85,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropri- ated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 

The amendment was agreed to. ' · The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment 

was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

F. 0. SAINT CLAm. 

The bill (H. R. 109) to refund to Dr. F. 0. Saint Clair $97.80, duties 

on a monument to the memory of Francis J. Townshend, lat-e of the 

United States Navy, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, read 

the third time, and passed. 

NICHOLAS J. BIGLEY. 

The bill (S. 3074) for the relief of Nicholas J. Bigley was considered 

as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Claims with amendments, in line 6, before the word "thousand," to strike out "fortytwo" and insert "twenty-one;" in the same line, after "thousand," 

tostrikeout "six" and insert "two·" inline7 aftertheword "cents" 

to strike out ''being· for four barges' sunk and' destroyed worth $1,600 

each," and insert "being for;" in line 11, after the word "cents," to 

insert ''lost or destroyed;'' and in the same line to strike out ''and the 

value of the tow-boat Hercules, $15,000;" so as to make the bill read: 

That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and di- rected to pay Nicholas J. Bigley, out of any money in the Treasury not other- wise appropriated, the sum of $21,211.50, being for 70,638 bushels of coal of the value of $21,211.50, lost or destroyed, as found by the Court of Claims. 

The amendments were agreed to. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments 

were concurred in. - The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the 

third time, and passed. JOSEPH R. WHITE. 

The bill (H. R. 988) for the relief of Joseph H. White was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It provides for the payment to 

Joseph R. White of$299.23 to settle his claim for pay and allowances 

while serving in the United States Army as a private in Company K, 

One hundredth Pennsylvania Volunteers. 

The bill was reported_ to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. 

PAY OF A:R.MY-BONDS OF DISBURSING OFFICERS. 

The bHI (H. R. 8S73) in relation to bonds of disbursing or other offi- cers and to monthly payments of the Army was considered as in Committee of the Whole. . The bill was reported from the Committee on Military Affairs with an amendment, in section 1, to strike out: 

Tha t the Secretary of War may accept a persona] bond, or the bond of an in- corpora ted gua ranty company, or both, for the faithful discharge of the duties of any disbursing officer or other officer of the Army, and such bond shall be in lieu of form e r bonds of such officer in r espect to liabilities accruing subsequent to da te of approval of said bond. 

And insert in lieu thereof: Th:1t, for the faithful discharge of the duties of any disbursing officer or other officer of the Army, the Secrel.ary of War may accept, as a. surety or sureties on ~he bond of such officer, an incorporated guaranty company. or may so accept Individuals o r both , and snch•bond shall be in lieu of former bonds of such offi- b~~~ respe ct to liab ilit ies accruing subsequent to the date of approval of said 

So as to make the bill rea.d: 

That, for the faithful discharge of the duties of any disbursing officer or other officer of the Army, the Secretary of War m a y accept, as a surety or sure ties on the bond of such officer, an incorporated gua ra nty company, or may so accept individuals or both, and such bond shall be in lieu of former bonds of such offi- cer in resp ect to liabilities accruing subs11quent to the date of approval of said bond. 

SEc. 2. That the Army shall herea fter be paid monthly, when ever the Secre- tary of War shall in his dispretion so direct. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill was reporlied to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

JAMES AND WTI.LIA.l\I CROOKS. 

The . bill (S. 948) for the relief of James and William Crooks, of 

Canada, was announced as next in order. 

Mr. COCKRELL. That had better be passed over, It involves a question of very considerable importance. _ 

The PRESIDENT pro .tempore. The bill will be pn.ssed over to the 

Calendar under Rule IX. 

LIGHT-SHIP AT SANDY HOOK. 

The bill (H. R. 8855) for the establishment of a light-ship with a 

steam fog-signal at Sandy Hook, New York Harbor, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce with an amendment in line 4, after the word "fog-signa]," to strike out " the entire cost of which shall not exceed the sum of $60,000, " and insert 

"and the sum of$60,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated therefor, out of any moneys in the Treasury not 

otherwise appropriated;" so as to make the bill read: That there be established off Sandy Hook, entrance to N ew York IIarbor, a new light-ship with a steam fog-signal. and the sum of $6U,OOO, o r so much t hereot as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated ther efor, out of any moneys itt the Treasury not otherwise appropriated: Provided, That the construction of said light-ship shall be let after advertisement to the lowest r esp onsible bidder , n n d shall be built in Amer1can ship-yards. · 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment 

was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

LIGHTS AT SAN DIEGO BAY, CALIFORNIA. 

The bill (H. R. 1228) for establishing light or lights and a fog-signal 

at or near Ballast Point, entrance to San Diego Bay, California, was con·. sidered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce with an amendment, in line 4, after the word "California," to strike out: At a cost not to exceed $25,000. 

And insert: And the sum of$25,000, or so much £hereof as m ay be necessary, is hereby ap- propriated therefor ont of o.ny moneys iu the Treasury not otherwise appro· priated. 

So as to make the bill read: That light or lights and a fog--signal be established on or near Ballast Point, entrance to San Diego Bay, California, and the sum of $:!5,000, or so much thereof as m a y be necessary, is hereby appropriated therefor out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriat-ed. -

The amendment was agreed to .• 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS. 

The bill (H. R. 1239) to extend the jurisdiction of the Light-House 

Board to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, California, was con- sidered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce with an amendmenb, in line 14, after the word "permanent," to strike out: 

The entire cost of which, including the leasing of sites, shall not exceed $15,- 000. . 

And to insert: And the sum of $15,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby np- propriated therefor out of any moneys in the Treasm·y not otherwise appropri- ated . 

So as to make the bill read: That the jurisdiction of the Light-House Board is hereby extended to the Sac- ramento and San Joaquin Rivers, in the St-ate of California, for the establish· ment of such beacon-lights, beacons, and buoys as may be necessary for the use of vessels navigating those !!treams, and the establishment of such lights on those rivers as may be found necessary by said board is hereby authorized: Provided, That no beacon shall be established on any site until cession of ju· risdiction over the same has been made to the United States; and the said boarcl is also authorized to lease the necessary ground for all such beacons as are used to point out changeable channels, and which in consequence can not be mn.do permanent; and the sum of$15,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is het·eby appropriated therefor out of any moneys in the Treas ury not otherwise appropriated 

The amendment was agreed to. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-' SENATE. 8211 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read n third time. 

The bill was read the third ti'me, ·and passed. 

LIGHT-HOUSE AT TANGIER ISLAND. 

The bill (H.ll. 8750) for the establishment of a light-house at or near Tangier Island, Chesapeake Bay, was considered as in Committee of 

the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce with an amendment, which was, in line 4, after the word ''Bay," to strike 

out the words "at a cost not to exceed $25,000" and insert in lieu 

thereofthe words "and the sum of$25,000, or so much thereof as may 

be necessary, is hereby appropriated therefor, out of any moneys in the 

Treasury not otherwise appropriated;" so as to make the bill read: That a light-house be established at or near Tangier Island, Chesapeake Bay, and the sum of ~25,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby ap- propriated therefor, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and p.assed. 

LIGHT AT OTTER CREEK. 

The bill (H. R. 5716) for establishing a light at the mouth of Otter 

Creek, Lake Champlain, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce with an 

amendment, which was, in line 4, after the word "Vermont," to strike 

out the words "at a cost not to exceed $1, 000" and to insert in lieu 

thereof tho words "and the sum of $1,000, or so much thereof as may 

be necessary, is hereby appropriated therefor, out of any moneys in the 

Treasury not btherwise appropriated;" so as to make the bill read: That a light be established at or near the mouth of Otter Creek, Lake Cham- plain, in the State of Vermont, and the sum of 81,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated therefor, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and tl.e bill to be read 

a third time. 

'l'he bill was read the third time, and passed. 

LIGHT-HOUSE NEAR BARNEGAT, N. J. 

The bill (H. R. 1641) for the erection of a light-house at or near a point about midway between Barnegat and Navesink lights, in the 

State of New Jersey, was considered as in Committee ofthe Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce with an .a.mendment, which was, in line 5, after "New Jersey," to strike out 

the words "at a cost not to exceed $20, 000" and insert in lieu thereof 

the words ''and the sum of $20,000, or so mnch thereof as may be nec- essary, is hereby appropriated therefor, ont of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated;" so as to make the bill read: 

That a light-house be established on the Atlantic coast, at or near a point about midway between Barnegat and Navesink lights, in New Jersey, and the sum of $20,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated therefor out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. Before these bills are adopted I should 

like to ask what committee they are reported from? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Committee on Commerce. 

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. It strikes me we ought to have some statement from some member of that committee as to why we are throwing 

away this amount_ of money. We havedonenothingin tbelasttwenty 

minutes but pass bills distributing money without any reason whatever 

being as~gned. 

l\1r. PALMER. To relieve the mind of the Senator from Virginia 

I will state that all of these appropriations have been recommended 

by the Light-House Board and the Treasury Department, and they have 

been carefully considered by the Committee· on Commerce and re- ported on favorably. The amendments to these Honse bills have been 

made so as to include the appropriations in the bills. 

l\1r. RIDDLEBERGER. I should like the Senator to state if any 

of these bills emanated from the House of Representatives. 

Mr. P ALUER. All of them. I think if the Senator will take the 

Calendar be will see that they are all House bills. 

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. The only change that appears to be made 

by the Senate committee is that the words ''so much of the money as is necessary shall be appropriated" are inserted. 

:Mr. PAL1'.1ER. The limitation is cbang:ed to a positive appropriation. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. 

The bill was re.:'\d the third time, and passed. 

LIGHT-HOUSE ON ROE ISLAND, CALIFORNIA. 

The bill (H. R. 1249) for establishing alight-house and fog-signal on Roe Island, Suisun Bay, California, was considered as in Committee 

of the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce with an 

amendment, in line 4, after the word " California," to strike out "at 

a cost not to exceed $10,000," and in lien thereof to insert: 

And the sum of $10,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby ap- propriated therefor out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated. 

So as to make the bill read: 

That alight-house and fog-signal be established on Roe Island, Suisun Bay, 

California, and the sum of $10,000. or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated therefor out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amend· 

ment was concurred in. 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

LIGHT-HOUSE AT GREAT WICOMICO RIVER. 

The bill (H. R. 1912) for the establishment of a light-house at the 

mouth of Great Wicomico River, Virginia, was considered as in Committee of the Whole. 

The bill was reported from the Committee on Commerce with an 

amendment, in line 4, to strike out ''at a cost not exceeding $25,000 '' 

and in lieu thereof to insert "and the sum of $25,000, or so much 

thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated therefor out of any 

moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated; '' so as to make 

the bill read: 

That alight-house be established at or near the mouth of Gre.at Wicomico River, Virginia, and the sum of $25,000, or so t:nuch thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated therefor out of any moneys in the Treasury not other- wise appropriated. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. · 

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. 

The bill was read the third time, and passed. 

CONFERFi.NCE ON LIGHT-HOUSE BILLS. 

Mr. PALMER. I move that the Senate ask for a conference on the 

disagreeing votes on the amendments of the Senate to Honse bills 8855, 

1228, 1239, 8750, 5716, 1641, 1249, and 1912-the bills thah have jnst 

been passed. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, in each of 

those cases--

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. I should like to hear the titles of those 

bills read. I do n()t know them by their numbers. Let the titles be 

read. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

A bill (H. R. 8855) for the establishment of a light-ship with a steam fog-signal at Sandy Hook, New York Harbor. A bit} (H. R. 1228) for establishing light or lights and a fog-signal at or near Ballast Point, entrance to San Diego Bay, California. A bill (H. R. 1239) to extend the jurisdiction of the Light-House Board to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, California. A bill (H. R. 8750) for the establishment of a light-house at or near Tangier Island, Chesapeake Bay. A bill (H. R. 5716) for establishing a light at the mouth of Otter Creek, Lake Champlain. · 

A bill (H. R.1641) for the erection of a. li~ht-house at or near a point about midway between Barnegat and Navesink hghts, in the State of New Jersey. A bill (H. R. 1249) for establishing a light-house and fog-signal on Roe Island, Suisun Bay; California.. A bill {H. R. 1912) for the establishment of alight-house at the mouth of Great Wicomico River, Virginia. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. These bills of the House of Representatives having been passed with amendments, au order will be en- tered in each case for a committee of conference with the House of 

Representatives on the bills and amendments. 

By unanimous consent, the President pro tempore was authorized to 

appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate; and 111r. PALMER, Ur. 

DoLPH, and Mr. VEST were appointed. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Have all those bills passed from the control ot 

the Senate? 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. They have not. 

Mr. MITCHELL. If they have not, I should like to offer an amendment t6 one of the bills providing for light-houses. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has not indic..'l.ted the 

bill which he desires to amend. 

' Mr. MITCHELL. Any one of them providing for a light-bouse; I 

do not care which. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The last Order of Business is 1983, 

House bill 1912. · Mr. MITCHELL. I move to amend that bill, then. 

The PRESIDENT pro te-mpore. The vote by which tbe bill w s passed will be reconsidered, if there be no obj ection, and also the vote 
, 

8.212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. SEPTEMBER 3, 

ordering the bill to a third reading. The Senator offers an amendment. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I offer the body of Senate bill 3280 as an amendment, to provide for the construction of a light-house at Heceta Head, 

Siuslaw River, Oregon. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be read. 

The CHIEF CI.ERK. It is proposed as an amendment to add the following: 

That the sum of $80,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the purchase of a site 

and the construction of a first-order coast light-house at Heceta Head, Siuslaw 

River, Oregon. 

The amendment waa agreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I also offer as a further amendment to that 

bill-

:M:r. COCKRELL. I want some explanation about that amendment 

before it is agreed to. - I shall have to object to the consideration of 

the bill if everything every Senator wants is to be tacked on to it. 

Ur. MITCHELL. The amendment is a precise copy of a bill that 

has been favorably reported from the Committee on Commerce and is 

on the Calendar. 

.Mr. COCKRELL. Where is it on the Calendar? 

Mr. MITCHELL. It is Order of Business 2040. It wn.s recom- mended as an indispensable light by the Light-House Board and was 

reported by the Committee on Commerce. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Final action has not yet been taken 

on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Oregon, which is an 

amendment to the amendment, the Chair understands. ' .1\Ir. PALMER. Iseenoobjection tothat. Itiscustomarytoamend 

House bills by appending Senate bills, and this is one of those cases, I 

think. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment as amended and as 

proposed to Order of Business 1983, House bill1912, is agreed to in 

the Senate. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I further move to amend the same bill by attachinO' to it as an amendment the body of Senate bill 3237, Order of Business 2038. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The amendment will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to add as an amendment the following: 

That the sum of $60,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the establishment of a light- hip, to be provided with fog-signal apparatus, outside of the bar of the 

Columbia River on the Pacific coast. 

:Mr. 1tllTCHELL. I will state that this is also strongly recommended 

by the Light-House Board, and a bill of similar purport has been reported unanimously from the Committee on Commerce and is now on 

the Calendar. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Where is that on the Calendar? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Order of Business 2038. 

Mr. P ALMEH.. I will suggest that the report on that bill be read. 

Mr. BECK. Let the recommendations of the Light-House Board be 

read. What is the date of it? 

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. There is no report. 

Mr. JtllTCHELL. The Light-House Board recommends it. 

Mr. BECK. When? 

M:r. MITCHELL. At this session of Congress. 

Mr. BECK. There have been a great many recommendations this 

session purporting to be from the Light-House Board, but I think generally by their secretary. It seems to be a very easy thing to obtain 

from him a recommendation ofanything. I doubtwhetherthe LightHouse Board knows much about i.t. The date of the letter will indicate. If it is in the regular estimates of the Light-House Board I should 

have a great deal more faith in it than if it came in subsequently. 

Mr. P AL1t!ER. I will state in regard to that, that the recommendation is under the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury and we have 

the right to infer that it passed under the inspection of the proper officers, whether done by secretaries, clerks, or whoever. I suppose the mere manual labor was done by the clerks. _ Mr. BECK. The moment we get the date of the recommendation 

that will show for itself. Then I shall desire to make a remark. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The hour of2 o'clock ha~ng arrived 

the unfinished business is in order; but fust the Chair will present 

House bills for reference. · 

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED. 

The following bills, received from the House of Representatives, were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Pensions: 

A bill (H. R. 8) to restore Mrs. R. S. Horton upon the pension-rolls; 

A bill (H. R. 508) granting a pension to Sarah F. Hawkins; 

A bill (H. R. 2566) for the relief of Phillip Kopplin; 

A bill (H. R. 3504) for the relief of John German; 

A bill (H. R. 3801) granting a pension to Nelson J. Crook; 

A bill (H. R. 4820) granting a pension to Ellen Kelly; 

1\. bill (H. R. 6022) granting a pension to Smith Bodkins; 

.A bill (H. R. 7516) to increase the pension of Sylvester Stearns; 

A bill (H. R. 8748) to increase the pension of Richard Jobes; 

A bill (H. R. 8993) for the relief of Shadrack W. Brown; 

A bill (H. R. 10106) to pla~e the name of Matilda Spangler on the 

pension-roll; 

A bill (H. R. 10224) granting a pension to Elias H. Hall; 

A bill (H. R. 10256) to place the na.me of Lucy Wagor, of Hillsdale, Mich., on the pension-roll; 

A bill (H. R. 10258) to place the name of Cyrus Millins, of Ogden 

Centre, Mich., on the pension-roll; 

A bill (H. R. 10504) granting a pension to Mary Hooper; 

A bill (H. R. 10856) for pension for Eliza N. Aiken; 

A bill (H. R. 11021) to increase the pension of Charles Hahneman; 

and 

A bill (H. R. 11057) granting a pension to Margaret Gray. 

The following bills were read twice by their titles, and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary: . 

A bill (H. R. 10621) for the removal of the political disa.bilities of 

John H. Parker, of Virginia; and 

A bill (H. R. 11197) for .the removal of the political disabilities of 

Henry A. Ramsay . 

AID TO COMMON SCHOOLS. 

On motion of Mr. BLAIR, it was 

Ordered, That the bill (S. 371) to aid in the establishment and temporary sup- port of common schools be reprinted. 

.A.DliTSSION OF W .A.SHINGTON. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate 

the un.finished business, being the bill (S. 12) to provide for the formation and admission into the Union of the State of Washington, and for 

other purposes. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I ask the Senator from Nevada to give way. 

Mr. STEW ART. I can not give way. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending question is on the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from illinois [Mr. CULLOM] to 

the substitute reported by the Committee on Territories, which has bc~n read. 

Mr . .PLATT. Mr. President, the Senator from illinois [M:r. CuLLOM] does not appear to be in his seat and I have sent for him. I 

wish, however, to say-and I might as well say it while he is absentthat I can not vote for the amendment of the Committee on Territories, 

and I shall vote for the amendment of the Senator from Illinois; and 

in deciding so to vote I do not settle in my own mind the question 

whether the Pan-Handle of Idaho, as it is called, should finally be annexed to what constitutes the Territory of Washington or-not. At a previous session of Congress I reported in favor of a bill for the admission of Washington T-erritory, which included in the proposed State 

this northern portion of Idaho Territory. I did so then, being a mem· ber of the Committee on Territories having charge of that measure, 

believing from the evidenee before the committee that it was the desire 

of the people of Northern Idaho to be attached to Washington Territory 

when that Territory should become a State, and that there was such a natural barrier between the northern and southern portions of Idaho as made it practically impossible for those two sections of that Territory ever to have very definite relations with each other. When this 

matter was first agitated that seemed to be the almost universal sentiment of the people in Northern Idaho. A few residents of Coour d'Alene 

County w~re disposed to go to Montana; but I think it is fair to say 

that when the question was first agitated the inhabitants d Northern 

Idaho felt that there was never to be any such connection between 

Northern and Southern Idaho as would give them the opportunity of 

participating in the State government if Idaho should be admitted 

finally as one State; and so they wanted to be annexed to Washington 

Territory, except some who, as I have said, preferred perhaps to go ta 

Montana Territory. 

The bill for the admissionofWashington Territory which was passed 

by the Senate at the last session of Congress provided for. the incorporation in the new State of what is called the Pan-Handle of Idaho, 

Northern Idaho; but as it was manifest that bill was not going to pass 

the other branch of Congress and become a law, a bill was passed originating in the other House, and being first passed there, annexing this 

northern portion of Idaho to Washington Territory. The Senate concurred in the passage of that bill, but it reached the President so late 

that he did not sign it and it did not become a law. Whether he purposely neglected to sign it or whether he did not have time to con- sider it I am·not informed. Since then there has been avery vigorous o~jection to the proposed division of Idaho Territory and the incorporation of the northern portion of it with the Terri tory of Washington 

from the people of Idaho. I think that the objection has been a growing one from the time wben the project was first broached, but I am not satisfied that it ought not to be done; and that depends largely in 

my mind upon the que tion whether it is practicable to establish rea- sonable communication between the southern· and northern portions 

of Idaho. 

It is still claimed by the people in Northern Idaho that th;lt is simply impossible, that the range of Salmon River Mountains is oo i.ta· 

• I 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8213 

passable that no railroad is to be constructed throu~h there, and that 

if such roads are projected t.he expense of their construction will be so 

~reat that they will never be completed. On the other hand it is said 

that railroads have been projected, with easy grades comparatively, all 

within the Territory of Idaho, and thatitisprobablethat at uo distant 

day they will be built. 

As I say, this question of whether Northern Idaho ought to be incorporated with Washington Territory depends, in my mind, largely 

upon whether it is going to be possible and practicable within the near future to establish communication between the two sections of the 

Territory within the Territory. If it is so that the people of Northern 

Idaho have got to go away out into Washington Territory and around 

through Ore~on to get to the capital of their Territ{)ry, then I think 

their contention is Jt\s~ that their relations, commercial, social, and 

natural, with Washington Territory.are so great that they ought to go 

to Washington Territory; but on the other hand if they can be accom- modated with railroads there would seem to be a harshness about what 

is called the dismemberment of Idaho. 

And so I have said that I am going to vote against the committee's 

amendment, but in favor of the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, without having determined in my own mind the question of what 

should eventually be done in this matter. I do not think it necessary 

to decide that now, and I think that to pass the bill as the committee 

propvse would be very likely to complicate the question and to delay 

perhaps for an indefinite period the admission of Washington Territory. 

I think that Washington Territory ought to be admitted as a State 

at once; H ought to have been admitted two years ago at the lastCongre.3S. It seems to me, not to use a harsh phrase, little less than an outrage that a Territory so far advanced as Washington Territory, with 

such needs, should not be admitred to the Union; and the principal 

reason, or one of the principal reasons, which determines me in voting 

against the committee's amendment is that, with the feeling against 

this dismemberment of Idaho Territory represented by the governor 

and by the Delegate from Idaho Territory, I fear to incorporate it in 

this bill will complicate and delay and make impossible the admission 

of Washington Territory at th,is session of Congress. 

If Washington Territory shall be admitted as a State with its present 

boundaries this question can just as well and perhaps better be Ecttled 

after that is done than to attempt to settle it now, for the people of North- ern Idaho certainly will be no less inclined to go to Washington when it 

has become a State than they are now when it is only a Territory and has 

only the hope of becoming a State. Indeed I think they will be more anxious to have this matterdoneafterWashington Territory shall have 

been admitted as a State, because then they would have the certainty 

that if such an act could be passed they would at once be admitted to 

the privileges of statehood. 

Another reason why I think it is well to have it delayed is that this 

question, of which I have spoken, as to whether communication is to be 

established between the two great sections of Idaho Territory will perhaps approach nearer to a solution than at the present time; and so much of this ca.~e depends, in my mind, upon the solution of that problem that I think it is quite w~ll to wait before determining this matter 

until we have further light upon that subject. 

As has already been stated to the Senate, one county in Northern 

Idaho is practically unanimous for being attached to Washington, and 

I think that upon a vote being taken as proposed by the committee's 

amendment it is probable that a majority of the people of Northern 

Idaho would vote to be attached to Washington Territory and to be incorporated within the boundaries of the new State. There would be 

considerable opposition, a large opposition to it. It is a question which 

excites quite a division of feeling in Northern Idaho, and believing that 

th~ matter will settle itself in the near future if we admit Washington 

without including the Pan-Handle of Idaho within the boundaries of 

the new State, I shall vote against the committee's amendment and for 

the amendment of the Senator from Illinois. 

I will say this, however, if I have not already said it, that I am not 

yet convinced that this is the right and proper thing to do, but the 

question is so open to doubt and can be so easily settled in the near future that I think it better not to attach Northern Idaho to Washington now. 

Mr. CULLO~L Mr. President, I did not expect to occupy any of 

the time of the Senate upon this subject further than I have already, 

and I would not rise now to say a word but for the fact that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. MANDERSON], who intended to take part in 

this discussion and present some facts and arguments against the segregation of the e counties and the annexation of them to Washington Territory~ has been called away and left in my hands some papers which 

he desired tllat I should present. The paper which he specially desired that I should lay before the Senate is an argument prepared by 

the Delegate from Idaho Territory against annexation and in favor of 

keeping the four counties proposed to be taken off from Idaho in that 

Territory as they are now. Before doing that, however, Mr. President 

I desire to call the attention of the Senate to a meeting of the Demo~ cratic Territorial convention which has been recently held (on the 22d 

of August), in which I find the following resolution offered: 

At the meeting of the De-mocratic Territorial convention the following res~ lution was introduced by P.M. Davis, of Nez Perces County: 

.Resolved, That this convention, recognizing the Justice of the demand of the 

people of Nort-h Idaho for annexation to Washington Territory, hereby indorses 

the Stewart amendment to the bill now before the Senate for the admission of ~ ashington Territory with North Idaho attached, and submitting the annexa· tion matter to the voters of North Idaho. 

That was a resolution offered by Mr. Davis, who represented Nez 

Perces County, and I will say here that that county is the county in 

which is found the original capital of Idaho Territory, it having been 

taken away from that county, which has been in favor of annexation 

to Washingto~ Territory ever since. The resolution was submitted to 

the convention. 

T. D. Cahalan moved to Jay the resolution on the t able. 

Motion carried that the resolution be voted upon by counties. 

The result was, 44 to lay on the table to 6 against. The counties voting a,o-ainst were, Latah 3 and Nez Perces 3. 

Latah is a county, as I understand, that was originally carved out of 

the county of Nez Perces. 

Mr. PLATT. That was done at this session of Congress. 

Mr. CULLOM. As theSenatox from Connecticut says that was done 

at the present session. This shows that so far as the Democratic party 

of Idaho is concerned the delegates from every county in the Territory 

voted against the annexation of those four counties to Washington Territory, except those of Nez Perces and the county which has just been 

carved off Nez ~erces, they casting three votes each. All the rest of the 

delegates attending that convention-and I suppose it was the usual 

number-expressed themselves against the annexation of any portion 

of Idaho Territory to the Territory of Washington. 

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. PAYNE] asks how many of the districts proposed to be transferred voted in favor of the transfer. I have 

just stated that Nez Perce County is one of the counties proposed to 

be annexed, and that Latah County, which was a part of Nez Perce 

-county, also voted in favor of annexation-those two counties and none others-all the others voting in favor of keeping the Territory 

intact as it is now. I do not care to occupy the attention of the Senate in discussing this 

matter over again, further than to say that I agree in a measure with 

the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] that if it should be ascer- tained hereafter that there is no such thing as getting direct commu- nication between the northern and central and southern counties of 

Idaho, I should be in all probability in favor of the annexation of the 

northern counties to Washington; but it so happens that just now we have had evidences which I prese:r;J.ted before showing that it is possible 

that direct railroad communication between the north and central and 

southern portion of that Territory can be made; audit is not only possible but it is probable. Surveys have already been made, and it has 

been reported to be an entirely feasible enterprise to build such a road. 

So I have no doubt myself that it will be but a very few years, possibly not more than one or two years, before railroad communication 

will be had between these counties proposed to be annexed to Wash· 

ington Territory and belonging to Idaho and all the other portions of 

the TeJ'i'itory of Idaho; and whenever that is done there is no reason, 

so far as the convenience of the settlers is concerned in their commer- cial and political relations, why they should not remain as they are, a portion of Idaho Territory. 

I have been anxious that the honorable Senator who has reported 

this measure proposing to make this annexation should allow the original bill to pass the Senate, admitting Washington Territory pure and 

simple and permitting this other question to come up in the future if 

it is desired that it should do so after we have further information on the subject, so that we may be able to determine whether or not as a matter of actual fact they ought to belong to· washington Territory on account of mountain ranges and the difficulties of communication between the north and south portions of Idaho. I do not believe that 

any sU:ch difficulty will exist except for a very brief time; and so far as communication is concerned, they can now go around, as it has been 

intimated by the Senator from Connecticut, and get to the capital of 

Idaho just about as easily as they can go west and get t{) the capital 

of Washington Territory. I submit in perfect good faith, after an ex- pression of the people of that Territory both on the part of the Democratic party and the Republican party, which include all the people 

substantially I take it, against the annexation ·of this part of the Territory almost unanimously, whether it is fair to those people, whether 

there is that sort of necessity: for action on the part of the Senate that 

would justify us in proceeding to carve off a portion of Idaho Territory 

and annex it to another without submitting the question to the people 

of the Territory, but simply with a provision in the bill that allows 

four counties that propose to be annexed to vote on the subject with no reference to the will or wish of the other portions of the Territory. 

I do not desire to take up further time except to ask the consent of 

the Senate that the paper which I hold in my hand, and which is a paper prepared by the Delegate from Idaho Territory, and which was sent 

to me by the Senator from Nebraska [.M:r. MANDERSON] before leaving the city, with the request that I should submit it, be read at the 

desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BERRY in the chair). The paper 

will be read. 

Mr. GEORGE. -Before that is read I desire to ask the Senator from 

lllinois a question which J wish to have settled as having some udlu-
r' . / 

I 

I 

8214 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD----SENATE. SEPTEMBER 3, 

ence upon my vote. At one time when thiS matter of annexation of 

what is ca.llerl the Pan-Handle of Idaho Territory to Washington Territory wa.s being considered I was a member of the Committee on Territories, and some question of this.sort was raised, that owing to the peculiar physical conformation of ldl}ho Territory it was likely that it 

would be a very long time before it would have a sufficient population 

to become a State, and that the cutting off of this Pan-Handle would 

tend to delay tbat time indefinitely. I would like to hear the Senator 

upon that question. What effect would the cutting off of this PaL--

Handle from Idaho and annexing it toW ashington have·upon the prospect of Idaho Territory ever becoming a State, a member of the Union as one of the Sta,tes itself? · 

Mr. CULLOU. I can answer that question, I think, very readily. 

The Territory now as a whole bas a popuJation of about 100,000. The 

conn ties proposed to be annexed toW ashlngton Territory have a population of about 20,000; so that it would take off 20,000 of the population as the Territory is at present organized, and of course would put 

the Territory back by that much in its chances for very early admission 

into the Union. I discussed that question somewhat when I occupied 

the attention of the Senate before. I took the ground then, as I do 

now, that when it is shown very clearly that a Terrj tory bas a capacity 

to make a State of wealth and business and population, all the elAments that would make a respectable State of strength, and after it 

has struggled along through manY..years since 1861, I believe, without 

railroads, without any of the elements of civilization that belong to 

our older sections of the country, but its popu.lation pioneering through 

that region and developing it and undergoing the privations and hardships that they have done, as they are just reaching the point where 

they can begin to feel that they are early going to be entitled to admission into the Union, or at least the right to ask for admission, at 

that point of time to cut off one-fifth of their population and four of 

their counties territorially would be a hardship and wrong that the Congress of the United ~tates ought not to insist upon un.less the whole 

people by vote should. say that they desire or were willing that that 

should be dons. 

Mr. GEORGE. The whole people of what? . 

Mr. CULLOM. The whole people of the Territory of Idaho, not 

simply of the four counties, but the whole people of the Territory 

should have the power to say whether that should be done or not. Of 

course Congress has the power constitutionally and legally to cut the 

Territory all to pieces, and scatter it about and annex it to different!_ 

Territories, or all to one, or to a State;. but there ought to be an element of fairness in our legislation. In considering this question, especially in view of the fact, as I said awhile ago, that recent surveys by 

parties connected with the Northern Pacific or the Union. Pacific Railroad-! have forgn'tten which-have shown that a route can be found, 

and is foundr that will enable a railroad to be b11ilt from the north 

side of that range of mountains down the Snake River into the central 

portion of the Territory so as· to thereby connect the two portions and 

give them opportunities of communication one with another, we ought 

not, just at this point of time, with. all these facts before us, to segregate the Territory and annex part of it to any other without the consent by a vote of the people of the Territory. That, I believe, is an 

answer to the Senator. 

Mr. GEORGE. No; there is one point on which! did not make myself fully understood. I have heard -that the soil or the climate of 

Idaho Territory was not favorable to a thickly inhabited State. That 

is a pointt.o which I desire to call theattentionoftbeSenator-whether 

that be so or not. If that be so, the cutting off of this Pan-Handle 

would tend very much to keep that Territory back from arriving at 

the point in its population where it would be entitled to admission 

into the Union. 

Mr. CULLOM. - So far as the question of resources or capacity for 

development is concerned, I think the Senator from California [Mr. 

HEARST] stated here when the discussion was up before that he had 

been over that Territory and it was a magnifi.cent country and was 

capable of great development and possessed great resources; but I think 

the paper I have sent to the desk, prepared by the Delegate from that 

Terri.tory,will perhaps.gi.ve all the facts that.the Senator from MississipiJi desires in reference to the subject. I ask that it be read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The paper will be read. 

The Secret~ry read as follows: 

W .ASHINGTO:s", D. C., March 17, 1888. 

DE..-\R Sm: Appreciating the interest you have taken in Idaho Territory, I wish to submit, througk you, some of the reasons why the people of Idaho are utterly opposerl to the bill of Senator DoLPH, as amended by Senator STEWART, which is now before you-Senate bill No.12-providing for the segregation of Northern Idaho and giving i~ to Washington, and the proposed transfer of the residue of our 'l'erritory to the State of Nevada; and I desire to enter a solemn and earne-st protest against such proposed legislation for the following reasons: First. That Washington Territory is large enough and is suitable for a State without the proposed addition from Idaho. as it has 69,180 square miles, with facilities for commerce, agriculture, coal-mining, and lumbering interests un- excelled by any other given area on the continent. It has 2,715 more square miles than all the ew England States combined. Se.cond. Id!l.ho bas 8!,800 square miles, but has a. much greater area of desert and mountain surface than. Washington Territory, and the latter is far superior in commercia.} and agricultural wealth; hence there seems to be a palpable ag- gro.ndizement of ·washington by the proposed diminution of Idaho. Third. The proposed segregation practically takes off the four noFthcrn 

counties, Kootenai, Shoshone, Nez Perces, and Idaho, comprising- an aggrega-te area of ne'a rly 25,000 miles. If we resort to comparison, we find that this section is a little larger than the State of West Vi.J·ginia. Thus it will be seen that the territorial area in question, called the diminutive Pan-Handle, is not so insignifi- cant after all. It may be remarked of this extensive region sought to be "an- nexed" to the proposed State of 'Vashing ton t hat itsclilllate is peculiar, differ- ingfrom the general climate of the remainder of Idaho in the fact that seasonable rains so moisten the soil that it requires no irrigation; cereals and all vegetable 

products are raised in a bundan ce without the artificial aid of water. The balance of the Territory, or Southern Idaho, so called, will consist of n early 60,000 square miles, all of which require irrigation to produce well, so that i~ will be seen the only real and actual division of Idaho is climatic and not geographical. 

It is therefore quite essential to the preservation of the Territ.ory that this section should remain within and continue a portion of Idaho. Fourth. Let us now consider the matter of the alleged barriers between North- ern and Southern Idaho. They never did exist as insuperable geographical ob· stacles to the easy intercourse of the two sections, and now they are prRctically removed by roads and contiguous settlements. . ' This bugbear, of which so much use was made in the em·ly stages of this secession movement, disappears before the advancement of our pioneers, and no honest and intelligent observer acquainted with the facts would risk his reputation in urging it as a. cause for separation. -'l'wo railroad surveys have been made through these mountains, neither of which finds any serious obstacles to railroad construction. The alternation of mountains and valleys between Northern and Southern Idaho is not uncommon to the mountainous regions of the \Vbole Territory; and while the intervening valleys do not partake of the nature of plains, being long and narrow, there is one valley alone, the valley of the ·northern Payette aud Great Lakes, in the sotrthern portion of Idaho County, as large as the State of Delaware, and is fast being settled by industrious people. Fifth. Thewholeofidahohas greatfacilitiesfor irrigation, its eastern bound- ary being marked by the summits of the Roc1..-y Mountains, a.nd the different ranges that form i.s spurs, where fall snows inexhaustible and perpetual. The never failing supply of water from this som·ce makes numerous and abundant streams that flow through every portion of the Territory. Idaho has, together with Montana, the Virginias, North Carolina, and Ten- nessee, the only purely mountain boundary known to the Territories or to the States of the Union. Washington and Oregon are divided by the Cascade l\Iountains into Eastern and Western Washington and Oregon. A large por- tion of California iies east of the Sierra Nevada range. Vermont, Pennsylvania, New York, Nevada, and Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico, not to men~ 

tion other States and Territories, contain va t ranges of mountain structures within themselves and are not bounded by them. In fact, about the only natu- ral boundaries hitherto respected by Congress have been the great rivers, Ohio, Mis issippi, Missouri, and Columbia, and the Great Lakes and the foreign ju- risdictions of the British Crown on the north, and the Republic of Mexico on the south. 

Itl s obvious on the face of these facts that the trifling elevations between Northern and Southern Idaho constitute no solid ground for the proposed seg- regation. The reasons and their cause for this separation do not exist in the topography of the country. We must, therefore, conclude that the advocates of this measure, though perhaps sincere, are mistaken in their policy. Sixth. We have entered the great race of embryo States; and while we do not claim to have suffered more than the others in early privations, common to each, we do claim to be the peers of all who have hitherto laid the founda.tions of the great St-ates adorning our history, from the admission of Vermont in 1791 to that of Colorado in 1876. Seventh. I would now plainly suggest our quality and claim of statehood. We have lived under om· own system of laws; our jurisprudence is respected by surrounding States; our institutions of learning and our soc.ial and moral foundations are laid in indust1·y, integrity. and honor; our rights of property have become fixed and vested under our lR.ws; our population has increased from the unit of a thousand at our organization to one hundred thousand at the present time; and our people A,re looking forwn.rd, with the highest hope and with unexampled unanimity, to a not dist.ant admission into the Union. While seeking this exalted condit.ion in the family of States, nothing can be more ab- horrent to our people, and even to the country at large, than those vast meas- u1·es-of imperial legislation, it may lle called-proposed by the several bills now before Congress by which our fair Territory is to be parceled out and surren- dered to a neighboring State and Territory, who are anxiously waiting to ap- propriate our varied resources, and even the body of our people, to themselves. Upon what grounds or policy, worthy of the name of statesmanship, isH nec- essary to blot from the map of our .national domain a region of our country known and distinguished at home and abroad as one of the l"ichest and most prosperous of the Territories, and now fitted by area., population , and resources, t~ become a State of the American Union? The only reason I can see for this innovation upon all precedent is to gratify the territQrial avarice of sun·ounding States; for -it is an admitted fact that no such precedent can be found in our: history, nor in that of any modl!l"n State or country, except perhaps the unholy obliteration of Pola.nd from the map of Europe. 

The people of the United States, from the beginning until now, have bailed with rapture and proud satisfaction the acquisition of new States under and by virtue of the Constitution, and, if we mistake not, they will swell their opposi- tion to defeat this scheme of the public plunder of our soil and the transfer of our people to foreign jurisdictions, unacquainted with their wants and unac- knowledged by their laws. The purchase of Louisiana, Florida, and Alaska, the annexation of Texas, :md the acquisition of California, were all deeds of the highest exercise of the pow- ers of nationality and were sanctioned by the supreme Jaw; but to diminish the chances of any one of the expected number of new States west of the 1\Ii sis- sippi, and especially of tbe Pacific States, by the process of disintegration or ab- sorption, I believe would be the exercise of unwise discretion and a measure fraught with dangerous consequences. Precedent has established the law of purchase, conquest, o.nd anne::;:ation of foreign territory. This has been the salutary law of opr expansion, and bas led us on securely, with amazing results, to our present" greatness; but to reverse this rule and build up mighty Sta.tesfrcm the organized Territories of the Union would form a precedent which in some great emergency might lead to the destruction of inferior States in the same manner as it is now proposed to destroy a Territory with ample means and just claims to become a ~tate. 

Eighth. We will now proceed to note some facts which serve to resolve tbe pending question into one of greu.t national importance. And fit·s~. it should be here observed, thn.t, while two-thirds of the Republic, with only twelve States, lie west of the 1\Iississippi, twenty-six: States are emhra.ced in the one-third that lies east of it. Texas and C&elifornia are exceptionally large, bnt no constitutional me!'ns ex- ist of·compelling a Giminntion. It follows, that but seven or eight new States cnn be added, thus giving but nineteen or twenty at the farthest to thetrans-IYiississippi number. 'Vhy, then , diminish that possible number by stri ldng out I dab o altogether? No argument in support rises from our history and no imperative stat-e reason cau be givell 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. ~215 

for the measure; but public policy and public law alike seem to be against it, as we shall more fully see. Nint\1. It is quite remarkable that during a constitutional period of one hundred years, lacking one, no precedent can be found for the course now pro- posed. 

Twenty-five States have been admitted, and the an.tecedent Territorial rights 

of each have been definitely fixed and settled by the usages of a century. 

The principle and practice have become fundamental law, and should be re- spected as a final settlement of the grave question n@W before Congress. Thus, 

it seems to be reserved for the Territory of Washington and the State of .Ke- vada to make this unexpected and unprecedented att.ack upon the rights and 

boundaries of a Territorial organization of twenty-five years' standing for no other reason, so far as we' can discover, than to aggrandize each by the spolia- tion and dismemberment of the great and growing Territory of Idaho. 

Tenth. I have already spoken in general terms of the peculiar advantages 

and resources of Washington Territory, and have shown that the proposed 

"annexation" will give it the vast dominion from the northern gates of the 

continent at Pug-et Sound to the transit of the Bitter Root Mountains, now held 

by Northern Idaho. Let us now turn to a like consideration of the great State 

of Nevada. And first, it contains already 110,700 square miles. Add to this enormous surface the proposed absorption from Idaho of 60,000 square miles, it will make a grand total of 170,700 square miles. Why, then, we would ask, this 

demand for enlargement? This would give her 7 degrees of longitude and al- most 10 degrees of latitude in the very heart of the Coast States, bordering on California, already two-thirds larger than it should be. Besides, it is notorious 

that this enlargement would be a substantial addition to the Golden State, w hicb bas in fact so long controlled the magnificent Silver State of Nevada. 

The proposition would be totally inadmissible and even startling were Idaho 

merely tqe abode of savage tribes of Indians, and not, a'! it is, the home of civilized and advanced American communities. What, then, shall be said of the 

enforced transfer of 100,000 people who bold the keys to a mighty Commonwealth? The country will pu.use for a reply and surroqnding States will trem- ble for their integrity. Nevada has rare possibilities of gt·eatness within herself. The geographical position of the State of Nevada, upon the great tablelands of the northern temperate zone, makes her a favored base for the grasses indigenous to Chili and Peru, and enables her to support vast herds and flocks 

by the introduction of a little of the enterprise and thrift which make Idaho so desirable an acquisition. Nevada's ailment. is not of climate or soil, bnt is rather to be found in that fatal absenteeism resulting in carrying and scattering mighty 

accumulations of wealth abroad. This system, if pursued, will hold Nevada to -the causes which have tended to her decay, and has prevented her advancement 

and prosperity in those elements of wealth and power which hav-e characterized her sister States. - If Nevada be iq. such a condition as to require a.id from without to maintain 

statehood, would it not be a wiser policy for the General Government to make 

appropriations to develop its resources ande-enable it to build and construct a system of irrigating canals to utilize its millions upon millions of acres of desert 

lands, and thus prepare the same for settlement and cultivation? 

Idaho has done this without assistiiJlce from the revenues of the nation, by t.he wealth, the energy,industry, and enterprise of its own people. 

Eleventh. I wish not to be understood, by the display of square miles in the 

above outlines, that the population is not after all the essential element of pros- perous States. One reference to the census of 1880 will tell more on this subject 

than a volume of -&Tgument. That census shows in round n urn hers that the in- crease in the previous decade was near 12,000.000; two-thirds of this immense 

aggregate, or about 8,000.000. are credited to the States and Territories lying west of Louisi:l.na, Arkansas, l\11ssouri, and Iowa, and 4,000,000 to the east of this line. 

The coming and centennial census ofl890 will swell this enormous increase to at least 15,000,000, or perhaps 18.000,000. The conclusion to be-drawn from these 

premises will show 10,000,000 of this increase for ttie West to 5,000,000 for t-he 

eastin the above lines ofdivi ion. As Idaho is just coming into distinction before the migrating people of the 

world, and as it lies in the track of the great continentallincs of railway, and 

has lands in plenty and exhaustless mines, forests, and rivers. with a climate 

unexcelled, and a people ever ready to do a great work, I predict our population at the next census will be fully 150,000 souls. In conclusion, I would appeal to your honorable body to reject the several prop- ositions now before you, having for their object the dismemberment of Idaho. 

Very respectfully, 

Senator CHARLES F. MANDEnsmr. 

FRED T. DUBOIS, 

Delegate jo1· ldaho Territory. 

Mr. CULLOl\I. I shall not detain the Se'uate longer in discussing 

the subject. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from Illinois to the amendment of the Committee on Territories. 

Mr. CULLOM. I desire to state that the amendment first to be 

voted upon is the amendment offered by-myself admitting Washington 

Territory pure and simple with its original boundaries, without the 

addition of the four eounties of Idaho. 

Mr. PAD DOCK. I hope the amendment will be read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read. 

Mr. GEORGE. I want to amend the am~ndment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is an amendment to an amendment pending. 

Mr. CULLOM. I hope the Senator from l\Iississippi will be allowed 

to offer his amendment notwithstanding it is technically not in order. 

By unanimous consent I think he may be allowed to do so. The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is a proposition to strike out 

and insert, and it can be perfected. The Senator from .Mississippi can offer an amendment to that effect. 

l\ir. GEORGE. I move, in line 3 of section 2, to strike out the 

word "one" and insert ''three;" iii the same line, to strike out the 

word "league" and put in the plural-"leagues-" The same motion 

will be made in order to make the hill harmonious in line 14 of the same section, and also in line 16. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proposed amendments of the 

Senator from Mississippi will be read. 

Mr. GEOHGE. The point in tbat amendment is tbis: The section 

as it now st..'lnds makes the boundary of Washington Territory extend . 

1 marine league from tbe shore. _Iy amendment, if adopted, would 

make it extend 3 marine leagues from the shore. The object of tbe 

amendment is to include within the territorial jurisdiction of Washington when it becomeS a State th~ waters within 3 marine leagues 

from the shore. I move that amendment because I regard it as very 

important--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from l\Iississippi will 

yield to allow a ess:1~c to be received from the House of Repr-esentatives. 

l\IES.'3AGE FROM THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by_1Ir. T. 0. ToWLES, 

its Chief Clerk, announced that Ue House bad passed the following 

bills; in.. which it requey3ted the concurren{!e of the Senate: 

A bill (H: R. 8636) for the relief of Isaac N. Enloe; 

A bill (H. R. 11262) to author:ze the construction of "bridges a-cross the Kentucky River and its tributaries by the Richmond, Nicholas--

ville, Irvine and Beattyville Railroad Company; and 

A bill (H. R. 11336) a supplement to an ac ~ entitled "An ad to ex- ecute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese," approved the 

6th of l\fa-y, 1882. 

ClliNESE IMlUIGRATION. 

Mr. STEWART. I ask the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE] 

to yield for a few moments. I should like to ask unanimous con ent 

to have the Chinese bill, which passed the other House this moruing 

and which is sbQrt, put upon its pa"'-'>age. 

:Mr. GEORGE. I yield., certainly, to the Senators who are pressing 

that bill. 

'.Che PRESIDING OFFIC'ER. The Senator from Nevada a-sks tl1at 

the per; ding order be temporarily laid aside to consider a biH from the 

House of Reprei;entatives. which wiil be laid before the Senate) if th-ere 

be no objection. 

The bill (H. R. 11336) a supplement to nn act entitled ".An act to 

execnte certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese," approved the 

6th of :May, 1882, was read the first time by its title. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to t-he present con- sideration of the bill? 

Mr. PLATT. Let it be read for information. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be read the seeond time 

at length. , 

The bill was read the second time at length, as follows: 

Be it. enacted, etc., That from and after the passage of this act it shall be un- lawful for any Chinese laborer who shall at any time heretofore have been. or who may now or hereafter be, a resident witLin the United St.ates, a.nd who 

shall have departed or shall depart therefrom, and shall not have returned before the passage of this act, to return to or remain in the United States. 

SEc. 2. 'I hat no certificates of identity provided for in the fourthand .fifth sec- tions of the act to which this is a supplement shall hereafter be issued; and every certificate heretofore issued in. pursuance thereof is hereby declared void 

and of no effect, and the <.Jhinese laborer claiming admission by virtue thereuf 

shall not be permitted to enter the United States. 

SEc. 3. That all the duties prescribed, liabilities, penalties, and forfeitures imposed, and the powers conferred by the second, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth 

sections of the act to which this is a supplement, are hereby extended and !llade 

applicable to the provisions of this a-ct. SEc. 4. That all such part or parts of the act to which this is a.supplem.ent as are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the prese1lt·ci>nsideration of the bill? 

Ir. GEORGE. The bill bas-not beeu referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER.. It has not. 

l\fr. STEW ART. It has not; but I will say to the Senato-r from 

Mississippi that :it was unanimously passed by the House of Representatives this morning, and it is rather urgent. The House understands what they are doing, and I hope the Senator will not make any 

objection to the passage of the bill. 

!IJ. GEORGE. As I caught the reading of the bill, there is one , 

questi9n in it that I should like-to have settled. ·I have been voting 

all along against Chinese laborers coming to this country, from the. very 

first up to now; but there seems _to be an injustice or a possible injustice in the bill arising out of the provision which prohibits tbe com- ing into this country of any Chinese who have departed and have- not 

returned at tile time of the passage of the act. A Chinaman may be 

on his way back, be may be almost in sight of our shores, coming un- der a law and a treaty which allow him to land. It seems to me to 

be worthy of consideration wbetller the· denial of returning Chinese to come should not be put at a date which would abont give them time 

to get across the Pacific Ocean. I should like to have that matter-.coasidered by the Committee ou Foreign Relations before I vote upon the 

hill. 

The PRESIDING OFFJCER. Does the Senator from Mississippi 

make a motion that the hill be referred? 

l\fr. GEORGE. I make that motion. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be referred to tHe Committee on Foreign Relations if there is objection made to its prl'sent 

consideration. 

Ur. DOLPH. Tbat is done on the objection of the Senator from 

Mississippi? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is a House hill which ba--s been 

read twice, and the Senator from Mississippi desires to have it· referred. 

\ . 
., 

8216 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. SEPTEl\IBER 3, 

Mr. DOLPH. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. STEWART] asked 

unanimous consent that the bill be taken up for present consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 

GEORGE] asks that it be referred. 

Mr. DOLPH. The Senator from Mississippi objects to t.he present 

consideration of the bill. 

Mr. STEW ART. I wish to state to the Senator from Mississippi 

that the apparent hardship is not a real one, because a treaty was ne- gotiated a long time ago stopping the return to this country of those 

who go back to China. T.liey have six months in which to return to 

America. We have retained that treaty for a long time and they have 

been rushing in very rapidly in the mean time. I think they have had a pretty good. show on the return business. Enough of them have been 

smuggled in. I think the Senator from Mississippi had better withdraw his objection and let the bill pass. 

Mr. GEORGE. .As my votes and my speeches in this body have 

shown, I have been all along in favor of a very strict rnle to exclude 

Chinese laborers, but! think the Committee on Foreign Relations, which 

could a-ct on this matter at any time with~n twenty-four hours andreport it to the Senate, ought to consider whether the case which I put 

would not be a breach of faith which I think. the Government ought 

to keep with the Chinese laborers. 

Mr. MITCHELL. This bill passed the House of Representn.ti ves this 

morning, I understand, unanimously, and it came to the Senate, whereupon the Senator from Nevada [Mr. STEW .ART] moved to lay aside the 

pending bill that the Senate might proceed to the present consideration 

of this House bill. He asked unanimous consent for that purpose. Do 

I understand that the Senator from Mississippi objects? · 

Mr. GEORGE. I move to refer the bill to the Committee on Foreign 

Relations for their consideration. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator from Mississippi then objects to t.be 

present consideration of the bill? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill would naturally go to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations. Unless unanimous consent is given to 

consider it now, the bill will be referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Relations. 

Mr. VEST. I do not understand that the Senator from Mississippi 

objects to its present consideration. We can determine afterwards 

what we shall do with it. 

:M.r. GEORGE. I wish to make n. statement about it. I have stated 

my objection--

Tile PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will put the question. 

:Mr. GEORGE. I want to state--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let the Chair :first put the question. 

The bill having been read twice, the Senator from Nevada asks unani- mous consent that it be now considered. Is there objection? The 

Chair hears none, and the bill is before the Senate as in Committee of 

the Whole, and open to amendment. 

Mr. GEORGE. Now, I desire to say that! think it would be proper 

to have that point considered by the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

If no other Seflator agrees with me, of course I shall not make the 

motion to refer. 

Mr. VEST. That is unquestionably the meaning of the bill. I am ready to vote for it. myself. I believe in no sort of temporizing or halfway measures on this question. The Government of the United States 

ought to take a fum position and stand by it. Let these people come here, or else exclude them. If the present system of certificates and 

the return of Chinamen which follows it is to obtain, let us know 

it. For one, I am ready to vote for the bill. 

:M:r. TELLER. I understand that this bill is only here because it is 

understood that the Chinese Government have declined to accept some modification that was put upon the recent Chinese treaty, or have obiected, perhaps, to the entire scope of the treaty. I do not know that our Government have received any notice that the Chinese Government have rejected the treaty. The newspaper reports, by way of London, I believe, assert that the Chinese Government have declined to 

accept it. · I simply want to say that I am delighted that the Chinese Government have declined to accept the treaty. I am in favor of legislating 

upon this subject without reference to treaties. I do not think that 

the Chinese treaty recently negotiated was a valuable treaty. It gave us the privilege of doing for twenty years that w bich every independent 

- nation on the face of the earth a:sserts the right to do, to say who shall come here and who shall not. 

I repeat that I am glad the treaty bas been rejected. I know what 

the public sentiment of the United St.ates will demand of any and every 

administration, and that is that this class of people who come here, 

not to make homes, who come here not to better their condition permanently in any sense, but simply as laborers from day to day, who are 

brought in close competition with .American laborers, shall be absolutely excluded from t.his country. 

There are now about one hunru·ed thousand Chinese who have come - into this country, and I myself will welcome any legislation that shall 

deport every single one of them from the United States and send them 

back to China, where they belong. I do not regard tbat·as inconsistent with a fair treatment of China, nor do I consider it to be any outrage upon the rights of people to travel and to go abroad, nor do I con- sider it any outrage upon the right which is generally conceded that 

every man may select his own residence and his own home, for these 

people do not_ come here for that purpose. There never was a China- man landed in the United States who did not expect to return to China 

dead or alive, and in my judgment the sooner they return the better 

it will be for the .American people. 

:M:r. GEORGE. I am -very glad that the Chinese who come to this 

country do not come with the intention of remaining. I think that 

would make the immigration of the Chinese much worse than it is now. My objection to the immigration of Chinese into this country is not 

that they do not stay here, not that they do not become citizens of tho 

United States, but it is based on an entirely different ground. They are an inferior race, unfit fo! citizenship in the United Stat.ea and unfit 

to be competitors with American laborers. 

What I suggested was simply whether we had not better have the 

point to which I referred considered by the proper committee of this 

body. One of these men holding a paper from the Government of the 

United States which entitled him to return, having started on his 

journey, having got within sight of our shores, bavin~ expended his 

money and his time in making the trip, the question is whether under 

those circumstances he ought to be turned back. That was the point 

which I desired to have considered by the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

So far as I am concerned, I have been all along opposed to the Chinese 

coming here for the reasons which I have stated. I do not think they 

ought to ·be allowed to come here, and I think if we bad any proper 

way of getting rid of those-who are already here we ongh t to do it. 

But as m:y point does not seem to meet the approbation of any Senator here, and as all seem to think there is nothing in the supposed 

breach of faith in refusing to a man who bad already come within sight 

of onr shores under a paper which gave him the right to land, I will 

withdraw that objection to the bill. 

Mr. DOLPH. Mr. President, I do not care to discuss this question 

at this time; but there are two or three things which have been an- nounced publicly during the discuss:on of this question that I think 

perhaps ought to be corrected. 

One is the statement which has been made that the amendm(lnts 

placed upon the treaty by'the Senate were the cause of delay in its ratification or the cause of the rejection of the treaty by the Chinese G-ovemment. I took pains to inform myself at the time these amendments were adopted and I learned that the treaty bad not yet reached the 

Chinese Emperor; that it was then in the process of. red tape in the 

treaty bureau; and that the transmission and the consideration of any 

amendment would not delay the consideration of the tJ·eaty at all. Nor 

have I any information that the amendments were objectionable to the 

Chinese Government. They simply carried out what the State Department declared in its communication to the Senate to be the real 

meaning of the treaty--

Mr. TELLER. The Senator is speaking of the Senate amendments? 

Mr. DOLPH. I am speaking of the Senate amendments. Those 

amendments were approved by the Chinese minister here. If those 

amendments led to the rejection of the treaty by the Chinese Government, if it has been rejected, I am quite willing to take my share of 

the responsibility of haVing -adopted those amendments, because they 

placed beyond cont~oversy what was claimed by the State Department 

to be tho real meaning of the tr~aty and did not leave those questions 

open for further controversy between the two governments. 

Nor have I any information tnat the treaty has been rejected. I suppose I have seen what other members of the Senate have seen in the 

dispatches from London. On Saturday the State Department had rio 

information whatever on the subject, and believed that if the treaty 

had been rejected by China they would have recehed a cablegram from 

the American minister in China. 

Now, another point, and then I shall be through. When tb.e Senate 

Committee on Foreign Relations stirred up the question of a treaty last 

winter and took action upon the matter and reported their resolution, 

there bad not been, as I have very good authority for saying, a scratch 

of a pen between the two governments in regard to this Chinese treaty 

since the 1st of the preceding May. 

Mr. BUTLER. If not inconvenient, I should be glad to have the 

bill read again. I happened to be out at the time it was read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be read again. 

The Secretary again read the bill. ' 

Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, I did not say, as the Senator from 

Mississippi seems to have understood me, that my objection to Chjnese 

coming to this country is because they do not come to remain. I said 

they could be deported, ·or you could stop them from coming, without violating the principle contended for that people have a right 

to emigrate and to go to any country to make homes wherever they see 

fit, because these people do not do that. .As to their exclusion from 

this country, very grave reaEons could be gi>en why they ought to be 

excluded. 

I do not propose to discuss the Chinese question this afternoon, and 

I did not rise for that purpose. Years ago, and long before some people w bo are now very zealous in excluding Chinese bad opened their mouths, 
• 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8217 

I expressed myself very freely on the subject. I have never occupied one of them expressed it, to create public sentiment against the Adtwo sides in this case for the last twenty-five years. I have never be- ministration, when nothing of that kind was thought of or intended. 

lieved that i~ was the proper thing to introduce into the body of our On the other hand, Mr. Bayard did say that there had been some people a foreign people who must forever remain foreign, a people who communication with the Chinese Government in respect to a treaty, 

will not assimilate, who. will never become homogeneous, who come and he told us the exact state of the negotiation, I have no doubt prehere without their families, who contribute nothing at all to the strength cisely as it existed; and we urged him to hurry forward that negotia- or the glory of the nation, who take no part in the religious interests tion as fast as possible so as to avoid the necessity of passing a law ex- of the country, in its schools, in its asylums, who practically pay no cept in harmony with the treaty. I suppose that in pursuance of that 

taxes whatever, and whose highest ambition in the world is to return arrangement., without any party feeling, this negotiation was pressed 

to the country from which they came with whatever they can secure forward, and in the end a treaty was sent to the Senate, although stories 

here. My position can not be mistaken upon this point. were published in the papers that were entirely groundless in regard 

I rose simply to emphasize what I had on a former occasion expressed to the object of that interview. as to the treaty that was recently negotiated, a trea~y which I repeat When the Committee on Foreign Relations received .the new treaty 

I am glad is not likely to become the supreme law of the land. It is and examined it again without much difference of sentiment, although a treaty that in my judgment never ought to have been negotiated, a perhaps it was thought on the part of the Democratic members of the 

treaty that fixed a period of twenty years ·and then left us at the end committee that it was not necessary to change the terms of the treaty, 

of twenty years with a controversy as to whether wehad a right to ex- an amendment had been agreed upon which we understood had also 

elude Chinese. I welcome the bill because- it is an assertion of the been ratified by the Chinese Government; but it was agreed upon in 

right of this Government to exclude any and every class of people who order to make the treaty clear and explicit, so that there would be no are supposed to be detrimental to the interests of the commonwealth. longer any evasion through the courts of the terms of the law. So we That is all I desire to say, Mr. President. added two clauses to the treaty which did certainly make it more ex- Mr. SHERMAN. Ur. President, I rise not for the purpose of en- plicit, and which I am now satisfied were absolutely essential to carry 

gaging in this debate or to resist the passage of the bill, but simply to out the purposes of the Government of the United States. They were state the action of the Committee on Foreign Relations in respect to adopted in the Senate a11d sent back, and it was said at once through 

Chinese exclusion. the generaJ sources of information we have through the newspapers 

At the beginning of this session of Congress several bills were referred that those amendments were submitted to the Chinese minister and not 

to that committee. They were fully considered. The delegation from objected to, and it was supposed that, as a matter of course, they would 

the Pacific coast, largely interested in the question, were united with- in due time be ratified. out respect to party, and very earnest in opposition to the admission of From the inside history of this matter (and I gather it again from 

Chinese. They made representations to the committee that Chinese· the newspapers, for I have had no official intercourse with the Secreimmigration was offensive to them and dangerous to their civilization, tary of State about it) I have no doubt that our treaty relations were and repeated the arguments which have moved both Houses of Congress complicated by the treaty relations existing between Great Britain and 

heretofore in the passage of restriction bills. the Chinese Government in respect to Australia. Probably it was They further said to us that certificates under the previous laws to de- found by the Chinese Government that they had gone so far in this reparting Chinese who were here between the time of the execution of the gard that they would have to extend the same provision to the British 

treaty and the first law were fraudulently used as the means of admit- Government in regard to Chinese in Australia, audit may be that they 

ting Chinese who had never been iu America at all; and that all the became embarrassed by the situation. Therefore, I suppose they deprovisions of the law which were intended to ameliorate and modifY clined to ratify the treaty. 

the harsh requirements of the exclusion were evaded and avoided by The only thing I have to inquire about is this: I suppose as a matfraud, perjury, and other crimes. ter·of course the House of Representatives have information which we 

Therefore the Committee on Foreign Relations agreed unanimously have not, that the Chinese Government has refused to ratify the treaty, 

upon hearing these statements that it was best to make the exclu_ion because I take it that the House of Representatives would never p::t<ss 

absolute. No one doubted the power of the Government of the United a bill of this kind unless they had information' of that character; 

Sootes to do that without negotiating a treaty. that they never would by unanimous consent pass a bill which prJ.c-

.M:r. BUTLER. May I ask the Senator a question? tically abrogates all treaties upon the subject of Chinese immigrathu 

Mr. S.HERMAN. I hope the Senator will allow· me to finish, and unless they had been advised that the Chinese Government had dethen I will hear his question. clined to accept the amendments of the Senate and to accept the new 

l\fr. BUTLER. I merely wanted to ask a question for information. treaty as it now stands. 

Mr. SHER.M:AN. If I do not answer it before I get through, I will But for that supposition I would object to this bill or to any furtber 

then answer It. action upon tbe matter until we should know the faet; but I assume In respect to the treaty, no one doubted the power of Congress to that, as a. matter of course. If it turns out that there is a mistake make a law for the public safety even in violation of a treaty. That made, I want it distinctly understood that the blame rests not here power has been recognized by the Supreme Court. !tis the undoubted with the Senate but with the House of Representatives. If it should 

right of every nation to judge of what is necessary for its safety. But appear that the executive authority have not yet heard of the action of 

it was the general desire of the Committee on Foreign Relations that the Chinese Government and have not communicated that fact to the 

this should not be done if the Chinese Empire would agree to do it by House of Representatives, then I would say that the passage of this 

treaty. It was understood and stated to us that there was no question bill under the-circumstances would be wrong, that we ought to wait. 

but that the Chinese C'n>vernment would agree to such essential modi- But I assume that as a fact, because to assume otherwise would be to 

:fications of the former treaty as would enable the exclusion to be pra.cti- imply a wrong by the House of Representatives that I do not believe 

cally positive and prohibitory. would be done. 

Thereupon the committee with equal unanimity designated three The question gjmply for us is, there being no treaty, the Chines3 

members of the committee to go to the Secretary of State and see Government having declined to agree to the terms of the treaty prowhether a negotiation could be brought about by which this object posed, whether we shall now take the next step-that is, in pursuance 

could be accomplished without a direct act of Congress not in harmony of our power as a nation, declare that the immigration of Chinese laborers 

with the existing treaty. A subcommittee did go to Mr. Bayard and is not good policy, is not best for the interests of our country? 

had a conversation with him. I never supposed and never believed Upon that question I am in full accord with the general sentiment of 

that Mr. Bayard gave out any remarks that were made in that confer- the Senate and of th~ House and of the people of the United States. 

ence, because it would have been improper for him tQ do so, and he is 'Vhatever may have been said in the past, there is no doubt a concur- not a man who would do a thing of that kind. The effort was not rent sentiment in this country that we should prohibit ra-ces so distinct, 

made with any intention to embarrass the Administration or to em- so alien, so different in habits, civilization, religion, and character from· barrass Mr. Bayard in the slightest degree. It was made iu the most ours, from coming to our country, especially when they can not mingle 

friendly spirit. Among the members of that subcommittee was the in the body of our population. 

Senator from Alabama [Mr. MoRGAN], who has been the defender of Therefore I do not make any objection to the passage of this bill. 

the Administration and who is more distinctly the representative of I hope it will pass, but with the distinrt understanding that it is based 

the Democratic party on the committee than auy one else· he has taken upon the idea that the Chinese treaty has been rejected by the -Chinese 

the most active part. He was present and heard all tha't was said and Government, and if it should prove otherwise in is not our fault. 

participated in it. Mr. BUTLER. May I ask the Senator from Ohio a question? 

All that was said or all that was proposed by the subcommittee was Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly. I beg pardon for not yielding to the 

ihat if this thing could be brought about by the action of the execu- Senator before, hut I did not wish to be interrupted in my statement. 

tive authorities or the treaty-making power, it would be better as an Mr. BUTLER. I simply rose for the purpose of asking the Senator 

~x;ample for the future than for us to assert the power to pass a law from Ohio, as a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, whether 

~1thout respect to the treaty. if this measure should become a law it would not be in direct conflict 

The newspapers at once by some means or other gave a false color to with an existing treaty between this Government and the Chinese t~e interview, aud they stated that it was a movement of the Repub- t Government? • hcan party to embarrass the Administration, to put them in a hole. as Mr. SHERMAN. !think it is inconsistent with the treaty, but as the 
8218 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. SEPTEMBER 3, 

Chinese Government have declined to make a change in the treaty we have an unquestioned right to pass this proposed law. 

Mr. BUTLER. But the point I want to make is whether there is a treaty now existing between the United S.tates and the Chinese Empire with which this bill would come in conflict if it should become a 

law? 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. Undoubtedly, because the existing treaty provides 

for the certificates; they have been issued under existing treaty, and 

by virtue of those certificates the Chinese have a right to come back here 

for a certain time and under ce1·tain circumstances. It is only because 

the provisions of the law and the treaty have been violated by fraud 

and' perjury that such a measure as this would be justified. If that 

had been made clear and manifest to ns, we should have reported a bill some months ago, in substance making this same provision, but for the 

hope that the Chinese Gi»rernment might acquiesce in it and thus make 

it in a more orderly and proper way. 

Mr. BUTLER. A good deal has been saitl in the past by way of justification of votes cast by Senators on this floor, that the law proposed was a violation of an existing treaty, and therefore a violation of the 

Constitution of the United States. I understand the Senator from Ohio 

to state that this proposed law would be a violation of existing treaties, 

and therefore a violation of the Constitution of the United States. 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. No; I deny the m·go. 

:Mr. BUTLER. Then I take back the ergo ~neT confine it to the original premise. . Mr. SHERMAN. It is the abrogation of a treaty by law. We h:1.ve 

untlonbtedly a right to do that. We can not violate the Constitution 

of the United States. 

Mr. BUTLER. I stand corrected as to that. It is not a violation 

of"the Constitution, and my ergo therefore was a mistake; butthe j usti-

,fication made for the vote was that the law proposed was a violation 

of an existing treaty. · Mr. SHERA1AN. A change of an existing law. 

:Mr~ TELLER. May I correct the Senator? The word "violation" 

is not the proper term where there is a legislative displacement of a treaty. "Abrogation" is the proper term. 

Mr. BUTLER. That is a matter of argument. 

J\1r. TELLER. There is a great difl:erence between violation and 

abrogation. 

Mr. BUTLER. I am now discussing the fact that the votes of certain Senators upon this floor have been attempted to be justified because, as is stated, the law proposed was a violation of anexistingtreaty. 

Now, I understand the Senator from Ohio to state that this proposed 

law will be a violation of an existing treaty between the Chinese Government and the United States. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I did not use the word "violation." 

Mr. BUTLER. What is the word, then? 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. "Abrogation," "repeal." We do not violate a 

law because we repeal it; and a treaty is a law. 

Mr. BUTLER. This is an abrogation, then, of the treaty between 

China and the United States? 

Mr. SHER111AN. It is a substantial change; it is a repeal of it, 

you may say, so far as it relates to Chinese immigration. 

Mr. BUTLER. Very well. Is this the form in which it was provided that the treaty shoUld be abrogated? 

Mr. SHERA1AN. It was not, but we can change it. There is no 

doubt n.bout the power of Congress. to repeal a treaty if we choose to 

exercise that power. _ Mr. BUTLER. I understa.nd that perfectly well. 

M.:r. SHERM:.AN. Every nation has that right. 

Mr. BUTLER. I understand that perfectly well; but it seems to me that this whole Chinese business has been a matter of political advantage, ru1d webavenotbeengoverned bythatdeliberationwhicb itwould 

seem to me the gravity of the question requires. In other words, there 

is a very important Presidential election pending. One Honse of Congress passes an act driving these poor devils into the Pacific Ocean, and 

the other House comes up and says, "Yes, we will drive them further 

into the Pacific Ocean, notwithstanding the treaties between the two 

governments.'' I want to see our friends upon the other side on the rec- ord on that subject. I have been opposed, and I am now, to the introduction of Chinese into this country. I have always been opposed to 

it, and I will go as far as the Senator from Colorado or any other Senator in excluding them from this country; but I do like to see a little 

bit of consistency in gentlemen charged with the consideration of such 

grave matters as are presented to us in this whole question of Chinese 

immigration. I shall vote for the bill. I am very sorry, however, to 

be informed by the Senator from Ohio that it is a violation of a treaty. 

Mr. TELLER. It is no violation of a treaty. 

Mr. BUTLER. Well, that it is an abrogation of a treaty. I am very sorry to do that. I do not believe that the Senate would for one instant consider a proposition of this kind if it related to a strong, vigorous, active power in friendly relations with us. Mr. MITCHELL. May I ask the Senator a question ? 

• Mr. BUTLER. Certainly. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Is the Senator from South Carolina willing to 

vote for a bill on the subject of Chinese. restriction or Chinese exclusion that would in his judf?:ment contravene the provisions or any one of the provisions of an existing treaty ? · 

Mr. BUTLER. Well, I will say yes, under the leadership of my 

distinguished friend from Oregon, who bas certainly not hesitated a 'moment to abrogate treaties and violate them so far as they relate to 

Chinese. I will follow in his lead with greal pleasure. -

Mr. MITCHELL. I am glad the Senator from South Carolina is 

getting on my platform. I want to ask him another question. In the 

opinion of the Senator from South Carolina does the pending bill con- travene any provision of our existing treaty with China? 

Mr. BUTLER. I have no opinion on the subject. - I am noi informed. Therefore I appealed to !be distinguished Senator from Ohio 

[1\lr. SHERMAN], and he tells me that it does. 

1\Ir. MITCHELL. I am not asking what the Senator from Ohio said. 

We all know what be has said and what he has very correctly said. I 

want to know what the opinion of the Senator from South Carolina is 

in reference to the pending biR 

:Mr. BUTLER. I can not give an opinion, because I have not in ves- tigated the question. Mr. MITCHELL. I understand, then, the Senator from South Carolina is shutting his eyes, blinding himself, and cominp; forward here 

(because he has already said he intends to vote for the bill) and voting 

for a bill in reference to which he has no opinion, when he does not 

know what it means. 1\fr. BUTLER. The Senator from Oregon ought not to complain of 

that when I tell him very frankly that I place myself under his leadership. . Mr. MITCHELL. I am making no complaint. 

Mr. BUTLER. He ought to be content with that. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I simply wanted to know where the Senator from 

South Carolina stands in reference to this question. 

Mr. BUTLER. I stand right behind the Senator from Oregon. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That is a. good place to stand. 

1\Ir. BUTLER. And it gives me great pleasure to follow him. If 

be leads me astray he must be held responsible and not myself. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I am glad if it is true, as reported, 

that the treaty to which the Senate consented a short time ago has not 

received the approval of the Chinese Government, and for the reasons 

stated a moment ago by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER]. I 

regard it as a treaty .that never should have received the assent of the 

people of this country or of its treaty-makinp; power, and I do not believe it ever would have received the assent of the Senate even in its 

amended form, which made it infinitely better than it was when it came here, if any reasonable time had been taken for consideration, so that 

the sentiment of the people of this country could have been obtained 

in reference to it. · It was acted on very hastily. Personally I opposed 

its ratification, and have never yet had cause to regret my action in 

that regard. 

The pending bill, which I intend to vote for, because it is a bill which 

has, through the force ofpublicsentiment, come up v_ery gradually, in 

a measure approaching closely to the platform I laid down for myself on this subject several years ago, and which I have- never ceased to advocate, has no refer~nce whatever to that class of Chinese laborers who 

have never been in this country. It relates solely and exclusively to 

those Chinese laborers who have been in this country heretofore and 

have departed from it, or who are here now and may depart from it 

hereafter. That is all there is to this bill. 

Of course the bill, as all must concede, is in ~ direct contravention of 

the provisions of the second article of our existing treaty with China. r ·refer to the.A.ngel-Swift treaty of November 17, 1880. That article 

provides as follows: 

Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers, stu- dents, merchants, or from curiosity, together wHh their body and household 

servants, and Chinese laborers who are now in the United States shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded 

all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the 

citizens and subjects of the most favored nation. 

That is the existing treaty. This bill provides, it ·wm be observed, 

that Chinese laborers who were in the United States at the date of the 

making of this tteaty, the 17th day of November, 1880, shall not be 

permitted to go and come of their own free will and accord; that any 

of that class oflaborers who were here on the 17th of November, 1880, 

and who have heretofore left this country, or who may hereafter leave 

thiscolmtry, shall not be permitted to return. 

That is this bill, and so far as it goes is a most excellent billt in my 

judgment. It is true it abrogates a most important provision of the 

treaty. The only objection I ha.ve to the bill is that it does not go 

further and abrogate that other provision of the treaty and of the existing law which limits the power of the Congress and inhibits it from 

the passage of an act to absolutely exclude the immigration of Chinese 

laborers to this country for all future time. Six years of the time for 

which immigration bas been suspended under existing law have elap ed, I believe. Four years of the time remain. .at the expiration of four 

years, therefore, so far as anything in this bill is concerned, or in the 

existing treaty or laws of Congress, all the Chinese laborers in Christendom or outside of Christendom may come to this country without 

let or hinderance. 

• 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8219 

This bill does not touch that question, which i3 the great vital question after all in reference to the immigration of Chinese. It does affect, and it only affects, those laborers who are now within the limits 

of the United States or who have been heretofore at some former time 

within the limits of the United States. Existing statute law as well as 

the subsisting treaty declares that all that class of laborers-that is, 

those who were here November 17, 1880-shnll be permitted to return 

by the presentation of certain certificates authorized by the restric-

. tion act. This bill declares that those certificates from and after the 

passage of this proposed act shall be void, and that no more-such shall 

be issued, and it declares furthermore, as I have said, that no Chinese 

laborer who has ever been in the United States and has gone away, or 

who is here now and may go away hereafter shall ever be permitted to 

return. Therefore, so far as it goes it is a most excellent bill, although 

to reach that position in the business of excluding Chinese from this 

country it was necessary, as we must all admit, to contravene, repeal, 

or abrogate, to use another term, a clause in the second article of the 

existing treaty. There is and can be no question about that. 

While, therefore, I shaH vote for this bill cheerfully, I should vote 

for it much more cheerfully and with much greater alacrity if it went 

one step further, and provided that no Chinese person, of whatever citizenship or from whatever port or country he may come, whether he 

had ever been in the United States or whether he was never here, shall, 

from and after the date of the passage of this bill, be permitted to enter 

into or remain in the United States of .America. If I had my way I 

would do just what I proposed to do months and months ago by the 

introduction of the bill which I now hold in my hand. I would abrogate not all our treaties with China, but I would abrogate andre 

peal (after having made, as we have made from time to time ineffectual efforts to secure better terms by treaty) all those provisions in 

any and all our treaties with China which restrict Congress and tie up 

its hands and prevent us from passing a law which would forever exclude all Chinese from this country, excepting diplomatic and consular 

and other government officials. Iuasmuch as Congress has at last, reluctantly, arrived at the conclusion that in order to grapple successfully 

with this monstrous evil it has become necessary to abrogate, in part 

at l~st, our treaty stipulations with China, on the ~ound that they 

had become pernicious to the public peace and general welfare, it occurs to me it might have been as well, indeed infinitely better, had 

we in this measure wiped out of existence every impediment that 

stands in the way of an absolute iron-clad exclusion act, such as I had 

the honor of introducing first at the first session of the Forty-ninth 

Congress and again at the present session. 

Mr. BUTLER. May I ask the Senator a question just there? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly. 

Mr. BUTLER. Uay I ask the, Senator by whom that treaty was 

made which tied up the hands of Congress? 

Mr. MITCHELL. One was made in 1880 under President Hayes's 

administration, but the treaty which was made a short time since· 

undeT the present .Administration proposed to tie up the hands of Congress to an in~tely greater extent than does the existing treaty. 

Mr. BUTLER. May I then ask the question whether the Senate assented to that treaty? 

Mr. MITCHELL. To what treaty? 

Mr. BUTLER. To the last treaty, which the Senator said proposed 

to tie up the hands of Congress. 

.Mr. '11-'IITCHELL. It did. I never assented to it, however, personally. I was _opposed to it then; I .am opposed to it now; and I sincerely hope it will never become an existing treaty between the two 

countries. But let me tell the Senator from Soutp Carolina that if 

that treaty had not been amended by the Committee on Foreign Relations of this body and by the Republican majority of the Senate it 

would have opened wide many doors to Chinese immigration to this 

country that are not found available to-day under the existing tren.ty 

and under existing law. 

Mr. BUTLER. I understood the Senator to say that the door was 

very wide open before the formation of the recent treaty, and yet that 

the hands of Congress were tied by former treaties, beginning back 

with the Burlingame treaty, over which so much-ado wa..~ made in this 

country; and that by every treaty from that time down to the present 

thehandsofCongresshave been tied. Yeti understand theSenatornow 

to say that he.proposes, as the chairman of the Committee on Foreign 

Relations proposes, that this body, a part of the treaty-making power 

of our Government, after having attached its signature in solemn form 

to a treaty, is prepared to pass a. law which he says will abrogate or repeal or contravene the existing treaty. I used the word "violate." 

That is better English. It expresses more fully and completely exactly what is taking place here. The Senator tones it down. He 

says ''abrogate," ''contravene," "repeal." I say, according to the 

statement of the Senator himself and accordiDg to the statement of the 

Senator from Ohio, that this proposed law is an open, flagrant violation of an existing treaty between this Government and another government with which it is on terms of peace and good-will. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Now, Mr. President--

Mr. BUTLER. If the Senator will pardon me one moment--

llr .MITCHELL. I yielded for a question only. Now, l\fr. President, I ask the honorable Senator from South Carolina a question. 

Does he thiDk or hold that a repeal of an existiDg law on the statute~ 

book by Congress is a violation of that l:lw? 

:M:r •. BUTLER. The Senator uses the terms "contravene," "abrogate," and ;'repeal." He uses a number of those synonymous terms. 

Mr. MITCHELL. What does the Senator from South Carolina say 

it is? 

Mr. BUTLER. I am very sorry to admit that I have not information enough on the subject to express an opinion. It is humiliating to 

admit it, but it is tr"W.e. We had better discuss some subject that we 

know somethiDg about. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator admits, however, that-he is willing 

to pass a law to contravene a. treaty, and that he intends to vote for 

this bill. 

Mr . .BUTLER. I think it is a game of politics, this whole business, 

and not a very seemly one, either, I must say. But for the fact that 

we are on the eve of a Presidential election and each party wants to 

get the vote of the Pacific Slope, this Senate would not be engaged in 

this debate. 

Mr. TELLER. How about the House of Representatives? 

Mr. BUTLER. T.ae Senator from Colorado asks, ''How about the 

House of Representatives?" Why, Mr. President, the House is not a 

part ef the treaty-making power of this Government, except so fn.r as it may appropriate money to carry a treaty into effect. 

Mr. TELLER. It is part of the law-making power, and has sent this 

bill here. · 

Mr. BUTLER. It has sent it here, and the Republican Senate wants 

to go the House one better, that is all. We do not need to disguise it. 

We may want to cover up our purpose and say that it is a repeal and 

anJLbrogation, etc., of an existing treaty, but we do not need to dodge 

it. 

Mr. TELLER. Does the Senator admit that the bill was introduced 

in the other House for the purpose of politics? 

Mr. BUTLER. Well, I think it very likely. [Laughter.] 

Mr. TELLER. The Benator thinks it was. 

Mr. BUTLER. I think it very likely; and the Republican Senate, 

a part of the treaty-making power of this Government, is simple enough 

to come in and say: "Yes, we will see that play," and, if I IIL:'lY borrow an expression that is not very elegant, "we will go you one better." That is all there is ofit. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The Senate of the United States is not sitting 

to-day in the capacity of a treaty-making body. ' 

Mr. BUTLER. It is not to-day, but it has done so in the past. 

l\1r. MITCHELL. I decline to yield further. 

Mr. BUTLER. Very well. I beg the Senator's pardon. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The Senate is not sitting to-day, I repeat, as a 

part of the treaty-making power. It is sitting as part and parcel of the 

legislative branch of the Government. .A Democratic House of Representatives has passed a bill and sent it to the Senate, and the Senate is 

now consideriDg that bill. The Senator says that the bill, if it is arepeal of the treaty or of any provision of the treaty, is a violation of the 

treaty. He can designate it as he pleases, but we all understand that 

Congress has as much power, so far as the question of power is concerned, to repeal a treaty as it has to repeal a law. That has been decided over and over again by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

So it is a waste of words to be talking about that . 

I simply desire to call the attention of the Senate and of the counti:y, if you please, to the fact that this bill, while it does go so far as 

to contravene an important provision in the existing treaty between 

this country and Ohi.D.a, while it is a repeal of a portion of an existing 

treaty with China, it only goes to the extent of regulating the coming 

to this country of those Chinese laborers who are nowhere or who have 

been here some time in the pa~t. That is all there is of it; and it occurs to me that when the Democratic House thought it necessary to 

present a bill that will repeal or abrogate a provision of an existing 

treaty, they ought to have gone a little further and made the bill more 

effective and covered the whole ground. 

Mr. BUTLER. Then, Mr. President, I--

Mr. MITCHELL. As far as I am concerned, howe-ver--

Mr. BUTLER. I would suggest--

Mr. MITCHELL. I am thankful for this much of a bill, and not 

wishiDg to delay the matter, I shall offer no amendment. 

M:r. BUTLER. I was going to suggestMr. MITCHELL. One moment. I hope we shall proceed with the 

consideration of this bill and pass it this evening, and send it to the 

President of the United States to be signed, and we shall then have 

made some advance perhaps on the question of Chinese exclusion. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The bill is open to amendment as in 

Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. GRAY. Mr. President, it would be very hard indeed to frame a 

bill which looked to the more thorough exclusion of the Chinese from 

the Pacific Slope or from any part of our country, that was framed with 

any regard to the English language and was ca.pable of meaning what 

it said, that I would not support and vote for, even though it should 

in its terms and effect abrogate (or repeal, that is the proper word) " 

treaty exiStiDg between this countrv and <1P'Il.!t 
8220 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. SEPTEMBER 3, 

I _h~ve had my o:vn convictions, Mr. ~resident, on this great subject, 

for It IS :1 great subJect, :1nd I do not thmk that it is one that concerns 

mere partisan politics. I have had my convictions for a good while 

very thor~mghly fixed as to what was the true policy of this country 

and the nght of this country in protecting itself and its people in this 

regard. I in common I believe-though whether or not that is so would, 

not have affected my position and my belief-but in common I believe 

with a great majority of the party with which I have acted in this 

country, the Democratic party, I was willing to support any measure th_at looked to the protection of my country from this admixture of an alien and semi-barbaric race that came into, not competition in the 

proper. sense of the te~m with the people of our country, but came here alongs~de of !h~m, Without sympathy, without anything of tradition or h abits, rebg1on or customs that were ·common between them to interfere and disturb, supersede and destroy the labor and the interests 

of those who ba:ve made this country what it is, and to whom and on whom the future of this cormtry belongs and depends. I mea.n the 

great white race. I b~lieve that a question such as this transcends in importance any 

question of mere p~rty politics. It underlies it and sweeps over it, ~nd for that reason It challenges the attention and careful consideration 

of any one charged with a public duty in this country. Tber~fore, Ur. President, when this treaty was sent to us by the 

ExeeutiVe, months and months ago, I hailed it with delight, not as a 

partisan ~reaty, not as a measure of a partis:m administration, but one that was mtended to conserve the truest interests of this country and 

of all its people. And, sir, I here assert that if that treaty bad been 

promptly ratified in the spirit in which it was framed and sent to this 

body the very results of which the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MITCHELL] ba~ spoken as. be~g desired by him and as being sought to be 

accomplished by this bill would have been long ago accomplished by 

the simple ratification of this treaty itself. I assert that the amendments placed upon this treaty, and which now we have reason to fear 

(so far as we may accept some reports current in the daily papers within 

the last day or two) jeopard the ratification of this treaty by the Chi- nese Government, did not add at all to the protection that this treaty 

gave to the inhabitants of this country on the Pacific Slope or anywhere 

else. They were merely cumulative. They were placed there (and I say 

this with all respect for whoever placed them there) by way of greater 

caution, but they add nothing--

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator allow me ? .1~~· GRAY. One moment. T~ey added nothing, I say, to the prohibitive force of the treaty, and did not strengthen it one iota in the 

effect which it was intended to ha>e and which it undoubtedly would 

have if it bad been ratified. 

Jl.lr. MITCHELL rose. 

Mr. GRAY. On~ moment. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator allow me, right there? 

Mr. GRAY. Just one moment--

Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to ask the Senator a question right 

at that point. 

Mr. GRAY. Not just now, please. Article I of the treaty-I believe this treaty bas been published. 

Mr. TELLER. Ob, yes. 

1\Ir. GRAY. Article I of the treaty provides-

_The high contracting parties agree that for a period of twenty years begin- mng at the date ot the exchange of the ratifications of this convention the com- ing, except under conditions hereinafter specified, of Chinese labor~rs to the United States shall be absolutely prohibited. 

That was the wording of Article I as it came to the Senate. The 

English language could not go further in emphatic words of positive 

exclusion tha.n this article does. 

The amendment put upon it by the Senate, which delays its ratification, if it bas not destroyed the hope of ratification, is this: 

And this prohibition shall extend to the return of Chinese laborers who are !lot now in the United States, whether holding return certificates under exist- Ing laws or not. 

Now, surely those words added nothing to the prohibitive force of 

the treaty as it came to the Senate. · Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator allow me now ? 1\ll:. GRAY. Not now, if t~e ~enator please, because it interrupts 

the hne of my argument. I Will gtve way to the Senator in a moment. 

Now, Article II (without reading it) provides that this exclusion shall 

not apply to the return to the United States of any Chinese laborer 

who has a. lawful wife or child or parent in the United. States or property therem of the value of $1,000 or debts of like amo'ilnt due him and 

pending settlement. 

Neyerlhel~-

The article goes onevery such Chinese laborer shall, before leaving the United StatesBefore he leaves the United States, observe-

&~oosit, as a <;ondition of his retu.rn, with the collector of customs of the dis- trJct from which he depa_rts, a full descriptio~ in writing of his family, or prop- erty, or debts as aforesa1d, a.ud shall be furnished by said collector wit-h such cenificate of his right to return under this treaty a.s the laws of the United States may now or hereafter prescribe and not inconsistent with the provisions of this 

t:eaty; a.nd should the written description aforesaid be proved to be false, the r1ght of return thereunder, or of continued residence after return shall in each case be forfeited. - ' 

So that the exception from this absolute and universal exclusion is in 

regard only to those Chinese who have their families here or property her~ of the value of $1,000 and who have left, first ha.ving obta.ined a certificate such as· is described in Article II. Therefore it was idle to 

argue, and is to-day-idle to argue, that under this treaty a Chinaman 

who bad gone, before this ratification, to China, could return for it was impossible for him to have bad this certificate which it ~as re- quired be should have in accordance with the laws to be-thereafter 

passed to entitle him to such return. 

Therefore, 1\Ir. President, I think I am justified in saying that in 

my zeal and eager desire to see a. p1·obibition that would amount to som~thing go into force, I bailed with satisfaction this treaty, which 

provided for and secured this prohibition. I did not have the less sat- isf~c~ion that that ~rohibition so secured was not violative of any pre- e:nstrng treaty, for It was secUI·ed by a treaty to which both powers of 

course, were parties, and therefore this fact would remove all seruples 

from those who were against voting for a law which, accomplishing the 

sam~ ~esults, can o_nl:y accomplish them by violating or repealing the 

provJsions ~fan e~IStrng treat.y. Therefore I deprecated the a.ction of 

the Senate m putting an amendment to this treaty which bas delayed 

m?nt~s and ~ontb~ its ~oing into effect, and may perhaps, as I have 

said, Jeopard Its ratification at all. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator from Delaware bas declared -in the mostyosi~ive manner that the amendments made tO the treaty that we Rre speakmg about added nothing whatever to its prohibitory power; 

that they were merely cumulative and tautoloo-ical and that tlley did 

not change the meaning. 0 ' 

Now, 1\tlr. President, -if that is all so, I want to know from the Sen. 

ator .from Delaware. bow that a~endment when merely cumulative, 

making no change m the meamng, can be assigned by any kind of 

reason, by the Chinese Government or by anybody el e, as a reason for a refusal to accept the treaty when they were willing to accept it before the amendment was made? 

Mr. G~AY. 1\fr. President., :what effect-the sending back of that 

treaty with that amendment on It may have bad upon the Chinese Government I do not know, but it made delay, it ga.ve them time to reconsider this question, perhaps, as to whether they bad not conceded too 

much to the Government of these United States· and if I mav take a. 

sugges~ion_ fioati?~ in the newspapers that would perhaps answer, not 

auth<;mtatively It lS true, but answer the question of the Senator from ~regon [Mr. ~fiTCHELL] sufficiently for my purpose, it is this: That smce the ~rammg of this treaty and its being signed by the President 

of the Umted States and the Emperor of China a ship-load of Chinese 

have been sent back from Australin. to China and the attention of the 

C_hinese Government bas been called by the Government of Great Brit- am to the fact that they, in thf'ir colonie.o; of Australia and others in 

the Pacific Ocean, are unprotected against Chinese immigration, and 

tbe;v have demande~ I suppose some such protection as is given to the 

Un:t.ed States b! ti:1s treaty. And the Chinese Govemment if I may 

conJecture-which. IS all I can do..:._may very p_roperly say, "If we are 

to _have all countr1e~ c?ming down upon us and demanding the same 

thu~g, we are not willrng to place ourselves in a condition of degra- d~t~on before the wh?le world, to exclude our inhabitants and prohibit them rrom puttmg foot on any land except their own, and- therefore the Umted States not having seen fit to promptly ratify this treaty 

that we have .made securing absolute prohibition so far as they are concerned, we Will take the opportunity they give us and withdraw our 

assent:" That is a .~ere conj~cture, but not without plausibility and 

not Without probability, and IS the substance of what I see floatino- in 

the newspaper press of Friday and Saturday last. o 

Therefore it was a dangerous thing in the view of those who bad this ma~te~ at b~rt, as I have it at heart, to have made any delay at all in 

ratifymg this treaty that for the first time by the treaty-making power 

secured absolute exclusion of the Chinese. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Then, according to the Senator from Delaware, it was not the amendment of the Senate that bas prevented the acceptance 

of this treaty by China, but the trouble in Australia. 

Mr. STEWART. Iftheamendmentswerewhatcaused tber.ejection 

of the treaty, I think. the amendments were proper. Part of that Chi- nese treaty I was delighted with, because it was a step in the right direction. It contained provisions, however, which were very liable to be 

taken advaptage of and were looked upon by those who understood the 

Chinese character as unfortunate. Tpe second article begins as follows: 

-r:he preceding article shall not apply t-o the return to the United Stntesof any Chmese laborer who has u. lawful wife, child, or patent in the United States or property therein of the value of $1,000, or debts of like amount due him ~nd pending settlement. 

. Jt WOUld be Verr difficult to shut ?Ut the Chinese with that prhilege; 

It would be very difficult to meet tbeu arts and devices; so difficult that 

H was thought in the first place by those familiar with their character that it was worse than the former treaty. But great care was taken in 

the preparation of the bill that was passed the other day; that, it was thought, would probably remedy the evil of that provision. Then thr 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. '8221 -

amendment to the second article is this, after providing that they might everybody knows it would take but a short time to get the information 

return: before them. The Chinese minister had information at the time of 

And no such Chinese laborer shall be permitted to enter the United States oy these amendments and wa.s satisfied with them. 

land or sea without producing to the proper officer of the customs t.he return One thing more. I do not care to discuss the question, but I will 

certificate herein required. simply say that the Senat<>r from South Carolina [:M::r. BUTLER] underThat wa.s deemed by those familiar with their character on the Pa- took to draw a distinction between the act of 1882 and this act and 

cific coa.st a very essential provision. They said that the courts would objected to certain provisions which were said to be a violation of the 

construe the Chinese treaty as they did all the laws, and Chinamen treaty. I do not see anycomparison whatever between them. In Nocoming and desiring to enter would be allowed to come in by parol vember, 1880, we h~d secured a treaty with the Chinese modifying the 

evidence, and one of the difficulties that have been experienced on the Burlingame treaty on the subject of admitting Chinese into this conn- Pacific Slope and which have brought to the courts a great deal of try. We were professing then to legislate within the treaty; we were trouble is that parol evidence wa.s all that was necessary to show previ- not proposing to abrogate the provisions of a treaty. 

ous residence. The difficulty of excluding Chinese laborers upon that But how is it now? The treaty has been in force eight years. The 

state of things, depending upon parol evidence, was what s-qggested laws that we have passed have been ineffectual. The Chinese have 

that amendment. Without it a Chinaman coming would be able to evaded all the laws. We amended the act of 1882 in 1884, but it was prove the loss of a certificate, and could make a great deal of t1·ouble not sufficient. The Senate passed a bill in 1886, which the House of 

for the courts and for everybody. 1 Representatives would not take up and act upon, intended to provide 

The first article provided: • for further protection against Chinese immigration under the treaty. ARTICLE I. 

The high contracting parties agree that for a. period of twenty years, begin- The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations undertook to amend the 

ning wiLh the da.te of the e.xchange of the ratifications of this convention, t.he treaty last winter, and wnen they communicated with the State Decoming, except under the conditions hereinafter specified, of Chinese laborers to partment it was found that not a line had passed between the State 

the United States shall be absolutely prohibited. Department and the Chinese Government since the 1st of May precedThe best lawyers on the Pacific coast said that will be construed in ing. 

connection with our law; there are a great many of these Chinamen The Senate passed a resolution requesting a negotiation, requesting 

out that have not the right under existing law to return, and that is that a treaty be negotiated. The committee reported a bill before any 

liable to be construed as referring naturally to those that should here- treaty was negotiated, which was left on the Calendar waj.ting for the 

after come in-another liability of construction which might embar- treaty to be negotiated. A treaty was negotiated which was unsatis- rass the courts; and they were anxious that there should be a provision _factory to the majority of tl).e Senate and to a majority of the members 

against it. These amendments were not made in a spirit of caprice. of the Committee on Foreign Relations. It was claimed by the AdI wa.s inclined in the first place to take the treaty as it was and to ministration and has been claimed by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. 

rely on legislation. But after hearing their arguments I thought it GRAY] that the ~mendment had made no change, and that it was no best to make these amendments. more efficient than the treaty would be without it. I concur with my 

Mr. President, I am so much delighted with the action of the House colleague that it was not an efficient treaty. The Senate took occasion . of Representatives to-day that I can not have it in my heart to find to amend it, and a bill wa.s reported from the Committee on Foreign 

fault with anybody. This shuts the door absolutely for .five .years, and Relations and sent to the House. The bill was reported in the House 

I do not think it will ever be opened. There ha.s been an allusion to the first, but it was becau::-;e it was printed for the use of the committee; 

fact that this was a political move; I take it that political considera~ it was the Senate bill. What did the House do? They made it to re- tions may have had some effect on both sides, and I am glad they have. peal the act <if 1884 and the act of 1882, as well as to make the repeal 

The sentiment of the people on this great question ought to have an take -effect after the ratification of the treaty . • The House sent us a influence upon Congress. The sentiment among all the people who have bill containing these very obnoxious provisions that have been referred 

had experience is that Chinese immigration is one of the greatest evils to here, repealing the provisions which provided that no court should 

that can be inflicted upon our people; and this legislation is in response have power to naturalize Chinese citizens. The House sent us that bill, 

t<> a public sentiment which is equal in both parties, an honest public 

1 

and I moved to concur in the Senate, notunderstn.nding what the House 

sentiment, accomplishing a great good. We have been paltering with had done, and not observing that the act of 1882 wa.s included as well 

the question. Now we are shutting the door for five years, and it is a as the act of 1884 in the repealing clause. I should have explaineditto 

matter that Congress should be congratulated upon. Congress should the Senate if I had observed it. There never wa..c; any sense or reason in 

be congratulated also upon the fact that it has acted in response to pub- that provision of the bill. The treaty itself provided that Chinese 

lie sentiment, and I am glad that that sentiment is such that it has should not be naturalized, and the Revised Statutes exclude them from 

been heard in Congress and that all parties regard it. The only way naturalization. The provision was placed in the bill of 1882 for poto keep Chinese out is to stoJ> them, to shut the door. litical p11rposes and nothing else. As I have stated, I should have 

The Chinese Government have held back this treaty for the last six explained it to the Senate if I had observed it. . months, and they have allowed every Chinaman to come here who The Chinese Government seems now to have refused to ratify this 

wanted to come to evade our laws, and they are being evaded daily. treaty and the Senate and House both are willing to legislate within 

The Chinese have had notice enough. They have known for the last the purview of the existing treaty. The Senator from Ohio assumes, 

six months that there was a treaty pending which prohibited their and I assume, that the State Department has more information to-day 

coming here and that there was legislation contemplated, and if they than it had on Saturday, and that the House of Representatives has had 

started they started in order to evade the well-known intention of this more communication with the State Department than we have had. 

country and to evade also the agreement with China, namely, that they Now, what do we say? Why, that if the Chinese Government do not 

should be excluded. agree to our amendments of the treaty, then we agree to abrogate the 

I congratulate the country, Mr. President, upon the fact that weare former treaty; that is all. But there is no parallel whatever with the now to pass a law that shn.ll shut this door .absolutely for five years. act of1882. We are trying to carry out the treaty and to see whether 

I am confident there will be no difficulty in keeping them out after we the amendment will answer our purpose. There is no comparison what- once get the proper legislation. ever between the act of 1882 and this act. 

I hope this bill will pass. If it is for political purposes it is for ~ood Mr. VEST. · I have no idea whatever that the House of Representapolitical purposes. It is in response to the universal and just senti~ tives has any special information on .this subject. I have not the 

ment which would preserve this country for the white race, for the slightest impression that any such information has been ootained by 

American people. the Honse or any member of it. · 

Mr. DOLPH. Mr. President, I have heard it stated to-day in the But I wish to say that this scene to-day is the most striking illustra-

' Senate, and have seen that it was stated elsewhere, that the amend- tion in the political history of the United States of the growth ofpuhments to this treaty had -delayed its ratification by ·the Chinese Gov- lie opinion in this country. Those of us who went through the fight 

ernment. I wish to say that there is no proof of that. There is no in- of 1883, which settled the Chinese question forever on this continent, 

formation from auy source which justifies that statement. The Chinese know that there were two positions taken with regard to that act; in 

minister could not agree absolutely to the treaty; it had to be trans- fact both the first and second acts-the one which, after being passed, 

mitted to China for ratification. It is true the text was transmitted- was vetoed by President Arthur and the act that came from the House 

I suppose it was, I understood it was transmitted-to China before and was approved by President Arthut after passing the Senate. There 

being ratified by the Senate; but the Senate amendments were cabled were two positions taken by the opponents of those two measures, and 

at once to China, and if there was any opposition in the United States we fought it out upon those two positions to a finish, and we did finish, 

to the amendments it did not come from any representative of the and the crystallized result is seen in the public opinion of the people of 

Chinese Government. The Chinese minister favored the amendments, the United States to-day. 

agreed to them, and recommended their adoption to the Chinese Gov~ What were those two positions? The first was that the act violated 

ernment. the treaty with China known as the Burlingame treaty. That treaty 

Besides, at the time the treaty was ratified by the Senate it had not provided for a reasonable restriction as to Chinese laborers. The bill 

reached the Chinese Emperor, it was still in what was called the Bu~ that was introduced and was under the controlofthe Senator fromCal- reau of Treaties; it wa.s still undergoing the red-tape process. So be- ifornia, Mr. Miller, now deceased, provided a restriction upon Chinese 

fore the treaty was considered there they had before them the ratifica- immigration for twenty years. The position was taken that that was tion of the United States and the amendments as they were cabled, and an unreasonable restriction and violated the treaty; and the present 

• 
, 

8222 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 

occupant of the chair (1\fr. INGALLS] moved to strike out that provision 

and insert ten years. That was the first objection. 

The second objection was on broad-! was about to say restbetic, but 

I will not use that word-the broad philosophical objection made by 

the Senator from Massachusetts (1\Ir. HoAR] conspicuc;>usly, who led 

the opposition to the bill, that it violated the Declaration of Independence,- the old position taken by Charles Sumner when he moved to 

strike out the word " white" in that parliamentary contest to which 

the Senator from Nevada (Mr. STEWART] alluded the other day. It 

was contended that this was a home of refuge for the people of all nationalities, and that if we passed this bill it would violate that great 

right of finding here a universal home, as it applied to the people ot 

the whole earth, and we had arguments taken from scripture and ar-

' guments taken from international law to sustain that proposition. 

The votes in the Senate and in the House of Representatives disposed 

of those two questions, and the Chinese controversy ended in 1883, 

ended as absolutely and completely as the institution of slavery went 

out of existence as a result of the late war. That was the end of it. 

It is contended now that in 1884, when we passed an amendatory 

act, and in 1886, when we passed an act that went to the House but did 

not become a law, and on which the yeas and nays were not called, 

therefore the Senators who opposed the act of 1883 assented to the subsequent legislation of 1884 and 1886. 

Mr. TELLER. E1ghteen hundred and eighty-two, the Senator 

means. Mr. VEST. No; the act of 1884 I am speaking of. , 

Mr. TELLER. The actof1882the Senatorrefers towhenhespeaks 

of the act of 1883. 

1\lr. VEST. Well, I call that the act of 1883-the act passed three 

weeks after the .first act was vetoed. The second act came from the 

House. 

Now, as a conspicuous instance of the truth that Senators whoopposed the legislation of 1882 (adopting that date now for the time being), 

did not give their consent to subsequent legislation, but; simply acquiesced in it at the time. If I am not mistaken the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoAR], who led the .fight in 1882, went back to his constituents and told them that he did not agree with the subsequent legislation, but that the opinions of the people of the United States seemed 

to be crystallized against him, and that therefore he acquiesced simply 

because he could not help the result. That is the condition of this 

question to-day. 

The question, Mr. President, is settled, it is completed, it is ended, 

and the only thing for us to do now is to carry out the absolutely .fixed 

opinion of the people of the United States against the introduction of 

Chinese into this country. 

It is useless now, sir, in the face of this result to talk of the effect of 

treaties, whether of. treaties that have been made or treaties that are 

pending. The statutes of the United States will remain to the end of 

time against these people coming in, whether right or wrong, whether 

they violate the Declaration of Independence or violate treaties. There 

is no sort of question but; that the public opinion of this country has 

settled forever this whole controversy. 

I simply propose not to have any more bills on this question passed 

through the Senate without having the yeas and nays recorded upon 

them. I propose to have the yeas and nays, because of the argument 

that bas been made here that inasmuch as the yeas and nays were not 

called on the act of 1884 or the act of 1886, therefore everybody acquiesced in them. I will vote in favor of this bill, occupying the same 

position that; I have ever occupied since I have been a member of the 

Senate. 

I want to say, and that is the principal reason for my rising, that in 

calling. for the yeas and nays I shall not do it as an opponent of the 

bill, but in order that every Senator may put himself on record now 

in favor of or against the measure. ltfr. GEORGE. Mr. President, when I made the inquiry whether 

this bill would violate a treaty I had no idea that the question would 

bring up such a discussion as has taken place; but as that bas been 

gone into a good deal I propose now to show somewhat the attitude of 

parties in reference to this question from the very beginning. 

In the first place I want to call the attention of the Senate and the 

country to the fact that until the treaty of 1868 was made, commonly 

called the Burlingame treaty, there were no Chinese laborers in this 

country, and they had no right to come to this country. 

:Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Do I understand the Senator to say that 

untill868 there were no Chinese laborers in this country? 

:1\lr. GEORGE. None of any consequence. That was the .first law 

or treaty that ever gave them the right to come. 

l\lr. JONES, of Nevada. Why, sir, there were many thousands of 

them in this country at that time and had been for .fifteen years prior 

to that. 

Mr. GEORGE. Very well; but they were here without any treaty 

right and without any law of the United States. 

Mr. TELLER. Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Mississippi 

yield to the Senator from Colorado? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes. 

M.r. TELLER. Does the Senator say that there should be a law to 

enable a Chinaman to come to this country any more than anybody else? 

·.Mr. GEORGE. I say therewas no treaty right bearing on this people which bound us--

1\Ir. TELLER. Was there any law? , 

Mr. GEORGE. There was no treaty right which prevented us from 

using our discretion in the matter. 

1\Ir. TELLER. Was there any law to prevent their coming? 

1\Ir. GEORGE. None in the world, so far as I know, but there was 

no treaty which gave them a right or invited them to come, or tied the 

hands of Congress or of the Executive or of any other department of 

our Government in reference to them. In other words, a good deal 

has been said in this debate about closing the door against Chinese immigration. I propose to show now who opened the door and who 

fastened it open after they got it open. 

The United States of America-

! read now from the fifth article of the-treaty of 1868, negotiated by 

William H. Seward and Anson Burlingame. 

The United States of America. and the Emperor of China. cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual ad vantage of free migration and immigration of1What? 

of their citizensThat is, the citizens of the United States and of Chinaand subjects respectively from the one country for the purposes of curiosity, of 

trade, or as permanent residents. . 

That was the door that was opened for the admission of the Chinese 

into this country by a treaty right, under a treaty negotiated by Mr. 

Seward and by 1\Ir. Burlingame, and ratified by a Senate of which 

three-fouths of the members belonged to the Republican party. And 

in that treaty, sir, it is stated to be, as I have read, an inherent right 

on the part of the Chinese to come to this country, not only for the 

pmposes of trade and curiosity, but for permanent 1·esidence. That is 

the door, sir, that was opened np, which Senators on the other side of 

the Chamber seem now so anxious to close. 

A great many Chinese came in through that door thus opened by the 

Republican party. They were found to be an unsuitable addition to 

our population; they were found to be competing with our laboring 

people upon the Pacific coast, and in 1880 another treaty was negotiated, also by Republicans, for the purpose of givipg us what we had 

surrendered by the treaty of 1868-a right to put some limit,upon the 

importation or immigration of Chinese into this country. That treaty 

was negotiated, and then we had some legislation for the purpose of 

carrying out that treaty, a history of which I have in my hand, collated 

and prepared by a distinguished Democrat of the other House, Hon. 

WILLIAM D. BYNUM, of Indiana. 

That v;:as the .first effort to restrict Chinese immigration into this 

country. The Republican party had said the Chinese had an inherent 

and inalienable right to come-a right that inhered in them as men, 

a right which they could not alienate, a 1-ight whi.ch it would be an 

outrage on the part of any people in the world to deprive them of. 

That is what it meant by an inherent and inalienable right. 

Mr. BLAIR. May I ask the Senator a question? 

Ur. GEORGE. Yes. 

Mr. BLAIR. Does the Senator from Mississippi think that that inalienable right is a right which authorizes or empowers its possessor to 

interfere with the inalienable rights of others? Does be hold because 

the right is inalienable to migrate that it also implies by the possession 

of that right on the part of the immigrant that he may go where he 

interferes with a possessory right of the same character-a right to 

life, liberty, and property on the part of others? 

Mr. GEORGE. Is the Senator through with his question? 

Mr. BLAIR. I am through with that question. 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, I want t{) answer that question now before 

the Senator puts another. 

' Mr. BLAIR. Very well, I should like to hear the Senator's answer. 

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I take no such position as that. I 

take this position, or rather I have stated the position of the Republicans. They took the position in the treaty I have read that the right 

to emigrate, the right of a mau to change his home and to change his 

alle!dance was an inherent and inalienable right. 

l\1r. BLAIR rose. 

-Mr. GEORGE. I should like the Senator to let me go on. I do 

not want to be interrupted now. 

Mr. BLAIR. I simply wish to say--

Mr. GEORGE. I object to being interrupted now. I claim the floor, 

and I want to go on with my remarks. 

Mr. BLAIR. I do not object to the Senator having the floor; he 

ought not to feel so restive about it. 

Mr. GEORGE. I ought not to feel what? 

1\ir. BLAIR. I say the Senator ought not to feel so restive about it, 

because he can have the floor so far as I am concerned. 

Mr. GEORGE. I am not restive about it. 

Mr. BLAIR. It is a custom that has obtained in the Senate for a long time to yield the floor for a question. 

Mr. GEORGE. I am not at aU in the light of the Senator; if I am 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8223 

I beg his pardon. There is no man in the United States to whom I 

wish to be more polite. . Mr. BLAIR. I understand that, and I stand in the same relation to 

the Senator from Mississippi. 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, now let me procee(l. 

Mr. BLAIR. Certainly. 

Mr. GEORGE. I know that I am giving the Senator from New 

Harupshire a little history now, and it is not very ancient, either. 

Mr. BLAIR. I hope the Senator will proceed now. 

Mr. GEORGE. Very well; I shall proceed. 

The United States and the Emperor of China cordially reco~nize the inherent 

and the inalienable right of a man to change his home and allegiance, and also 

the mutual advuntage.s of free migration and immigration of their citizens and 

subjectsThe citizens of the United States and the subjects of the United 

States, if we can apply that term to them, and the subjects of the Emperor of China, respectivelyfrom one country to the other for the purposes of curiosity or trade or of per- manent residence. 

That is the doctrine which was announced as the doctrine of the Republican -party in the treaty of 1868. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. PresidentMr. GEORGE. I object to being interrupted now. 

1\1r. MITCHELL. The Senator will desire--

Mr. GEORGE. I must object to being interrupted. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator will allow mQ._ to correct him. 

Mr. GEORGE. I am reading from the treaty, and when I read from 

a treaty I suppose my reading needs no correction. I am not suppressing any of it. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator is--

Mr. GEORGE. I must again object to being interrupted. 

Mr. MITCHE.LL. The Senator has misstated the facts. 

Mr. GEORGE. I have not misstated the facts. That, Mr. President is the doctrine of the Republican party. That was the door which 

the Senator from Oregon and some other Senators on that side of the 

Chamber meant when they said the door ought to be closed. It was a 

door made by the Republican party, it was a door that the Republican 

party solemnly contracted with China that we should not close without 

a breach of faith. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator will certainly--

Mr. GEORGE. I object to being interrupted. 

lli. MITCHELL. The Senator will certainly yield for a correction. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DoLPH in the chair) . • The Senator from Mississippi has the floor, and should be allowed to proceed 

unless he gives way to another Senator. 

Mr. GEORGE. I stated the matter correctly, and if the Senator 

from Oregon is not satisfied with my statement of it he may correct it 

after I get through. · 

Ur. MITCHELL. I shall certainly do so, Mr. President. 

Mr. GEORGE. That is the door which the Senators are so anxious 

to close, they having opened it and having bound the Government in 

a solemn treaty not to close it. 

That was the first treaty on the subject. These Mongolians, these 

people whom I have heard Senators on the other side of the Chamber 

say were not homop:eneous with our people, but were alien in race and 

in religion, flocked over here, and came bythethousands. They crowded 

the honest American laborer; they made it hard, by their competition, 

for him to live, and there was complaint. There was complaint in 1879, 

before the other treaty was made, and an effort was made to correct it. 

Now, let us see how that effort was made. Who made it-who were 

the men-what party undertook to close the door which had just been 

made_ by the treaty of 1868 for the admission of these Chinese? 

I read from proceedings in the House of Representatives January28, 

1879, on a bill to restrict Chinese immigration. The "yeas" on that 

bill were 101 Democrats, 51 Republicans; "nays " 16 Democrats, 56 

Republicans. So the number of Democratswhovotedforthe~ill were 

double that of Republicans, and the vote against the bill consisted of 

three times as many Republican.q as Democrats. That was in the House 

of Representatives. Then the bill came to the Senate. When it came 

to the Senate let us see how it stood. There were for the bill22 Dem- · 

ocrats and 9 Republicans. ·.Against the bill there were 8 Democrats and '20 Republicans. That is the way the number stood then in reference 

to closing the door. That bill waspa&<;ed. Then the Republican Pres-

' ident, Mr. Hayes: vetoed the bill. On overturning his veto there were in the affirmative 83 Democrats and 22 Republica!!B, about four Democrats to one Republican, while for sustaining the veto of the President 

there were 15 Democrats and 81 llepublicans, nearly six times as many 

RepublicansastherewereDemocrats. Sothebill did not pass . . There 

was not a two-thirds vote for it, and therefore this door that theRepublican Senators are now so anxious¥> close, by their own votes and 

by the veto of their own President was kept open. 

The next time it came up was on March 9, 1882, on the bill to restrict 

Chinese immigration. Another effort was made to close the door which 

the Republicans had made wide and high, and had locked by the 

pledged faith of the Government, locked it open (not locked it shut), 

and fastened_ it. The next time the effort was made to close this door, 

\ 

which had been opened by the Republican party and labeled right over 

its lintel with the words, ''We acknowledge the inherent and inalienable right of the Chinese to come to this country not only for curiosity 

and trade but for permanent residence" (and I will get to that "per· 

manent residence" directly, to show what they wanted to use it for 

then) the vote in the Senate for the bill was 30 Democrats and 8 Republi~ns, nearly four to one-30 Democrats in opposition to t~is ~dea ingrafted in the treaty of 1868, that there was an rnherent and rnahen: 

able right in the Chinese to come to this country, not only for labor an<l 

trade and for curiosity, but for permanent residence. There were just 

eight Republicans who were assisting them to do that. Let us see w~o 

were the party of eight Republicans who were assisting to close this 

door. I will name them: Mr. Cameron, of Wisconsin; Mr. HALE, of 

Uaine; Mr. Hill, of Colorado; Mr. JONES, of Nevada; ll~r. M~ler, of 

California; Mr. Miller, of New York; Mr. SAWYER, ofWISconsrn, and 

Mr. TELLER, of Colorado. I do not see in those eight the name of Mr. 

Harrison, of Indiana, though he was then a member of the Senate. 

Mr. TELLER. Will the Senator from Mississippi please state what 

he is reading from ? 

Mr. GEORGE. I am reading from a table made out and published 

in the speech of Mr. BYNUM, a member of the House of Representatives fr<1m Indiana. 

JI.Ir. TELLER. What does it purport to be? A vote on what? 

Mr. GEORGE. The one I have last read? 

:Mr. TELLER. Yes. 

Mr. GEORGE. The vote in the Senate on March 9,1882, on Senate 

bill No. 71, to restrict Chinese immigration for twenty years. . 

Mr. TELLER. Am I put down there as voting against that bill? 

Mr. GEORGE. No, sir; the Senator from Colorado is one of the 

humble 8 Republicans [laughter] who helped the 30 Democrats to 

close the door. Senator Harrison was not one of them. Let us see whether he has voted on the other side or not. He seems not to have 

voted either way. If he had been filled with that spirit which now _ 

animates the Senators on the other side of the Chamber, that whether 

violating treaties, abrogating treaties, or otherwise, this door must be 

closed, he would have been present and voting, but he did not vote. 

His vote is not recorded. 

Oh, I am mistaken; he is recorded. I beg pardon. In the hurry I 

overlooked his name. Among the· nays is\ Harrison, of Indi;-- na, but 

there is a star by his name and at the bottom of the page there is a 

foot-note which says ''paired." So I suppose he did not vote, but he 

was paired, and paired, I believe, with Mr. Maxey, the former colleague of the Senator from Texas [Mr. CoKE]. So, according to the 

usages of the Senate, as we all understand, he was here, though absent, and though I!Ot present was voting. 

That bill was pa.Ssed. It encountered a little difficulty, too, at the 

other end of the A venue, and that difficulty was tpe veto of a Republican President. If the Republicans had voted in the same proportion 

for that bill as the Democrats did, they would have passed it over the 

President's veto. Here is the vote in the House of Representatives, 

March 23, 1882, on the Senate Chinese restriction bill: Democrats, 98; 

Greenbackers, 8; Republicans, 61; nays, 4 Democrats and 62 Republicans, fifteen times as many Republicans as Democrats. I believe that 

was the first vote in the House of Representatives. Now I come to the 

veto of the President. The vote in the Senate, April 5, 1882, to pass 

the Senate bill over the President's veto was 31 Democrats voting to 

overturn the veto and 6 Republicans. Those 6 Republicans were Cameron of Wisconsin, Hill of Colorado, JoNES of Nevada, Miller of California, Miller ofN ew York, and TELLER of Colorado; and not one Democrat voted to sust-ain the veto of the President. Let us J)ee who the 

nays were, those who were v<;>ting not~ pass the bill over the President's veto. Of these, there were Republican 28 and 1 Independent. 

That was in the Senate. 

On April17, 18tl2, the vote was taken in the House of Representatives, and 103 Democrats came up and voted to close this door which 

the Republican party had opened on the Pacific coast for the admission 

of the Chinese, and 91 Republicans. There were 3 Democrats who voted 

to keep the door open-just 3-and there were 34 ·Republfcans. 

Now, to show you, lli. President, that this Republican doctrine announced in the treaty of 1868 about the inherent and inalienable right 

of Chinese to come to this country for curiosity, for trade, and for permanent residence, was shared in by a large majority, as late as 1882, of 

the Republican members of this body, I will read some votes on certain 

propositions connected with that bill. 

The following sections were in, the House bill when sent to a Republican Senate by a Democratic House of Representatives: 

SEc. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the Unit.ed States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby re- pealed. 

Before that time there had been, as I learn, naturalization of certain 

Chinese somewhere in this country. 

l\fr. TELLER. I should like to ask the Senator if he will state 

where and -when? 

Mr. GEORGE. I learned on the discussion of that matter that there 

had been, and that this was necessary in order to remove all doubt on 

that subject. 
/ 

8224 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENA"TE. SEPTEMBER 3, 

l1:r. TELLER. I ask the Senator further if he does not know that 

the very treaty wbicli bad been made in 1880 provided against it? 

Mr. GEORGE. I do not know any such thing, and I will correct 

the Senator on that subject. The treaty did not provide any such 

thing. 

Mr. TELLE.R. A statute before that had been passed.. It did not 

include--

Mr. GEORGE. Talk about the treaty-one thing at a time. I will 

£ettle the treaty matter now. 

voted to keep it in and 1 D~mocrat to strike it out. 

follows: 

NAYS. DEliOGRATS-29. 

Bayard, Del. Farley, Cal. Jonas, La. 

Beck, Ky. George, Miss. McPherson, N.J. 

Butler, S.C. Gorman, Md. Maxey, Tex. 

Call, Fla. Grover, Oregon Morgan, Ala. 

Cockrell, Mo.* Hampton, S.C. Pendleton, Ohio 

Coke, Tex. Harris, Tenn.* Pugh, Ala. 

The nays were as 

Vance, N.C.* 

Vest, Mo. 

Voorhees, Ind. 

Walker, Ark. 

Williams, Ky. 

Davis, W.Va. Jackson, Tenn. Ransom, N.C.* 

But nothing herein contained shall be held- Fair, Nev. Johnston, Va. Slater, Oregon 

What? To authorize Chinese subject§; to be naturalized under the REPunLICANs-3. 

laws of the United States? No. Cameron, Wis. Jones, Nev. Miller, Cal. 

·shall be held to confer naturalization- *Paired. 

A right which under the Constitution of the United States can not Let,us see how many Republicans at that important point :in this 

be conferred by a treaty. If you look at the Constitution, you will controversy marched up and said, as Senators on that side of the floor 

see that Congress has power to pass uniform naturalization laws; but say, ''We aregoingtoclose tbedoor.'' How many of them were there? 

treating with a foreign power, a despot who had no limitation~ upon Just three, Cameron, of Wisconsin, JONES, ·of Nevada, and M:iller, of 

his power, no constitutional restrictions, it was necessary to put :in the California. And yet we hear all the time here about Democrats in the 

treaty that nothing herein should be held to confer naturalization- House not doing their duty in reference to this matter, and about a not confer the right of naturalization, but to make per se, by force of Democratic Administration not making a pJ;oper treaty and all that sort 

the treaty itself, a Chinese subject a citizen of the United States. of thing, as if the Republicans (after having made this door by which 

There was another provision in the bill which the House of Repre- this flood of Mongolians was poured on the innocent, hard-working, 

sentatives sent· to the Senate. That was section 15, which reads: and industrious laborers of this country) are now alone in favor of closThat the words" Chinese laborers," wherever used in this act, shall be con- ing it-, that the Democrats, the Democratic House of Representatives, 

strued to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in and the Democratic Administration, are not to be trusted with perform- mining. ing this work! 

r believe I did not read ihe vote on the first proposition, lbe vote on That was a vote in Committee of the Whole. There was another vote 

the amendment to strike out section 14. I will read that. When you when the bill got into the Senate on: striking out the section, and that 

voted to strike it out that was a vote in favor of Chinese naturaliza- turned out a little better. When it got into the Senate the Senator 

t ion. Section-14 prohibited Chinese naturalization, and how did gen- from Alabama [1\Ir. MORGAN] said he would reserve a separate vote on tlemen on the other side of the Chamber vote who are now so anxious section 15. When the Senate came to vote, against striking it out were to close the door against the admission of Chinese in this country that found 1 Democrat and 31 Republicans, Harrison, oflndiana,·voting then. 

they can not even allow a bill upon that subject to be referred to the as he did in Committee of the Whole, and there were 3{ Democrat'l 

Committee on Foreign Relations? How did the vote stand on .that? paired and voting the other way. · In favor of striking down the provision which prohibited the United That bill happened to meet with a little· accident, a very common Stutes courts from naturalizing Chinese, there were 28 Republicans for accident, too, it seems for G"'hinese restriction bills in American legis· 

striking it out in the Senate, and among them was Mr. Harrison, 1 lation. It encountered an executive veto, and another bill had to be 

Democrat, and 1 Independent. The nays were 31 Democrats and 5 Re- introduced limiting . the restriction to ten years. On that there were 

publicans, the same five.I have been reading about all the time, except 22 Democrats voting for the bill in the affirmative and 9 Republicans, it seems that my friend from Colorado [Mr. TELLER] was not present and the nays were 1 Democrat .and 24 Republicans, nearly tbxee times or did not ~ote. The Republicans who voted "nay" were-Mr. Cam- as many Republicans voting against the bill as there were voting for eron, of Wisconsin, 1\lr. Chilcott, of Colorado, Mr. Hill, of Colorado, it. And yet.now, with that record which I have read, the Hepubl!Ir. J ONES, of Nevada, and Mr. 1\Iiller, of California. They were the licans cla+m to be par excellence the friends of the American laborer, 

only Republicans in the Senate who would p;ut on record their votes par excellence the men who in sunshine and in storm, against all oppo- against this inherent and inalienable right, as they had declared in sition, propose to close the door which they themselves bad made in 

1H68, of a Chinaman becoming an American citizen-just five of the 1868 and bad written upon it: "To shut this door is to violate the inRepublicans. berent and inalienable right of a Chinaman to become an American 

Now I come to the other proposition, section 15. Here was a very citizen." restrictive clause, a very restrictive provision of the statute. It defined All things change, _Mr. President. A c~ mge came over the spirit of 

what Chinese laborers were, and in order to prevent any dispute in the the dream of our fnends on the other_ s1de, and the reason for that 

courts as to what a Chinese laborer was section 15was introduced and 1 change was announced upon the other side of the Chamber to-day; now let us see the definition: ' ' though not stated as a reason, it b:lS beeu ·statcd by one Senator or 

That t11e words" Chinese laborers," wherever used in this act, shall be con- more upon that sid'e; it is that all the country now wants these men strued to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in excluded; unanimously the American people have determined to ex- mining. elude the Chinese, and therefore, when the American people have be~ 

If that section had stood in the bill as it passed the Democratic House come unanimous, against the votes, against the speeches, against the 

of Representatives, no skilled laborer as well as no unskilled laborer protests, against the teacbingsoftbe Republican side, they all fall in and 

and no Chinaman engaged in mining could come. Now let us see how say, "Why, this is our job; you Democrats who have brought about 

the vote stood on that. The motion was to strike out section 15 and this change, who, when it was unpopular, when it was met by vetoes of 

the vote -to strike it out was therefore a vote against the proposition Republican Presidents, in sunshine and storm, stood up for the rights contained in that section. In favor of striking out were: Democrats of American laborers not to be crushed down by the Mongolian, we at • 1 and Republicans 31-tbirty-one times as many Republicans here who last have become lukewarm-ob, no; worse than that,. not only luke· 

wanted this section to go out of the bill as there were Democrats. warm in our day of prosperity and power and success, but we have beHere was a chance for your baste, for your eagerness to close the d0or come inefficient; a Democratic House can not pass a bill that is strin· 

which you bad opened, and yet :H of you said "We will not close it" on gent enough;" and presto! change! the very men who opposed restriction 

that amendment. Let us see who the 31 were. I will read them all- from the beginning of this thing, from 1879 down to the passage of the 

averyrespectablecrowd; nonamesthereexceptofgreatrespectability. last bill, until it bad been developed that the Amer·ican people were The list is as follows: about unanimous on this question, these men who opposed it up to 

Aldrich, R.I. 

Allison, Iowa. 

A ntbony, R. L Blair, N.H. 

Cameron, Pa. 

Chilcott, Coio. 

Conger, 1\licll. Dawes, Mass. 

• Paire d. 

YEAS. that time now step to the front, seize the colors, advance on the enemy, ~EMoCRA.TS-1. and say, "This is onr flag and our fight, and you are laggards if not 

Brown, Ga.* deserters!" That is the way to work it. 

REPUBLICA.Ns-31. That is the history of this thing up to now, for the last time. These 

Frye, Me. Lapham, N.Y. Rollins, N.H. yerymoderate bills incurred 1,woRepublican P;residential vetoes, and one 

:::~;is~~·. Ind. ~;~ni.~~~a ~!~Y~~:sw:r:~br. was passed by Democrats, and when a Democratic President, Mr. CleveRawley, Conn. McMillan, Minn. Sewell, N.J.* land, was in the executive office it was approved. That istbewaythat Hill, Colo. 1\iiller, N.Y. Sherman, Ohio* stands; and now we find our Republican friends, having through all this 

f!~:~i.,~K.S:~s. :M~~tH~:;: ~~d;;'r!~~fi~~~r. long series of years fought under this banner, not only for Chinese immiKellogg, La. Plumb, Kans. gration to take the bread out of the mouth of the American laborer, but ~DEPENDE:NT-1. also having fought for what they called in grandiloquent language in 

Davis, Ill. the treaty of 1868 the inherent and inalienable right of a Chinaman 

Among the yeas was Mr. Harrison, of Indiana. Now I will come to 

the nays, those who wanted to keep in the fifteenth section, and let us see bow the vote stood on that. There were 29 Democrat§; in favor of 

l<eeping t~1at section in, only lacking 2 of being as IIUlny Democrats in 

favor of keeping it in as there were Republicans in favor of striking it 

out. Thirty-,me Republicans voted to strike it out, and 29 Democrats 

to come here and to be a citizen and to vote. Now, after al1 this we can not go fast enough for them about it. We, who have borne the h~at and burden of the day, when we march to get toward the setting 

sun, covered with dust and wearied with this strife to exclude the 

Chinese, are met by these eleventh-hour men who, not content, as the 

eleventh-hour men in the scripture were content, to receive the same pay with those who had worked all day long, c.:>me in and say, "Wt 
. -.... 

1888. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. 8225 

take all the pay and those who worked all day long shall not have 

any." That is the attitude of the Senators upon the other side, sonie 

of them, most of them. The Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER], in 

my eye, and the Senator from Neva-da [Mr. JoNES], in my eye, are not 

of that sort. They fought under our banner. They set in early in the 

rooming, and from the rising of the sun until the victory was won they 

fought by the side of these Democrats, deserted, and not -only deserted, 

but knifed and opposed by the large majority of their associates. That 

is the way that thing worked. 

Now, what is this? A. Democratic House sends in a bill to-day excluding Chinese laborers. I suggested that perhaps it would violate a 

treaty. The ablest Senator not only on tliat side but on any side of 

this Chamber, and not only that but the ablest statesman now living 

in America, gets up aJ)d makes a-remarkable proposition, he having all 

along voted with the majority of his party, hastened up now by this 

unanimous opinion coming up from the Pacific coast. He gets up here 

and makes the remarkable statement that the bill is in violation of a 

treaty, and if the House of Representatives had not passed the bill and 

therefore given him a right to assume that they bad notice that therecent treaty was rejected, he would not vote for it! 

That is a remarkable proposition, Mr. President. When, where, 

what provision not only of the Constitution, but what provision of nature allows the House of Representatives, 325 of them, to have information which can not reach the Senate? I have heard all along from 

my boyhood up, if you give a secret to two men it is no longer a secret. Yet the Senator from Ohio bases his action in voting for this bill 

upon the impossible hypothesis that 325 men in the House of Representatives had a secret , a secret about public matters, too, and under 

no obligation to keep it secret, and upon that passed a bill, and that 

secret bad never r eached the Senate. Therefore the Senator from OhiQ. 

in acting in accord:mce with the House, was to assume that they knew 

something which did not exist! 

If I understood the present occupant of the chair [Mr. DoLPH] cor- rectly-I do not know that I did-1 understood him to say, when be 

spoke, that there was no evidence that the treaty had been rejected. 

I am.not sure that I understood him correctly, but that is the way I 

understood him, that nobody has any such information. 

That was the mere skill of the practiced debater in framing an excuse 

. for doing what he wanted to do. Nobodyhere believes that the House 

·has any such information. Nobody believes that three hundred and 

twenty-five men in the House have a little piece of diplomatic history 

that has traveled 15,000 miles, from China to the House of Representatives, and when it got there it l_ost its wings, it lost ita legs, and it 

could not travel any farther on to this end of the Capitol. That is the 

way the Senator from Ohio justifies his vote. _ 

Now, I come to another point. Senators were pressed by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] by the question if the bill was 

not a violation of the existing treaty. If I understood the Senator 

from Ohio aright be admitted at first that it was, until the matter was 

further pressed. The Senator from South Carolina was a little indiscreet I thought. I thought I heard him let out the object of his inquiry. He asked if it was a violation of a treaty with China,, and every 

one of the Republican Senators would march right up to it and violate 

it, then what becomes of the excuse they have been making ever since 

the nomination at Chicago for their cn.ndidate's vote. When we pointed 

out the votes oftbe Republican candidate for the Presidency as I have 

read them to the Senate, the excuse bas been, '' w by, he was an American Senator; he \\"as intrusted by the Constitution and laws of his country with the honor of his country; and the honor of his country bad 

been pledged in a treaty, and he could not violate it." That is the excuse which has been made; and so when that was let out Senators invented a new word for the same thing. It was not a violation of a 

treaty; oh, no, because if we aclmowledgethat we violate a treaty, we 

acknowledge that there was no excuse for General Harrison's vote. So 

they invented a new word . 

.Ur. President, men who play a game of this sort are very astute in 

philology. 'fhey have names, and they call the same thing by a 

variety of names, hoping that the American people are so blind, are so 

foolish that they can not look beyond the label which they put upon 

a thing at the thing itself. So we have now not "violation," but 

"abrogation." There is a little differencfl, but the difference is all in 

favorofthefellow who only violates it. A man might say, ''I will violate the treaty a little; I am pressed. Here is a great public necessity 

crowding me, pressing me to a violation; I will apologize for that; I 

will make reparation for it." But the man who comes to abrogate 

destroys the whole thing. 

1\Ir. TELLER rose. 

Mr. GEORGE. I do not want to be interrupted. 

Mr. TELLER. I should not think you would. 

Mr. GEORGE. Whilst the one is taking a little homeopathic dose 

of violation the other swallows a whole drug store of abrogation. So 

they will go out before the .American people, before the laborers of this 

country whose bread, whose respectability has been imperiled by the 

introduction of Chinese, hoping that these same laborers, toiling for 

support for themselves and their tamilies, wearied when they go to 

their slumbers at night, will not have the opportunity to think of the 

difference between violation and abrogation. 

This great Republican party dealt with this great question in the way 

I have detailed, resisting, holding up not only the plighted faith and 

honor of the American people as a barrier to all action in this matter, 

but pleading the higher law, even pleadin~ the rights or the Chinese 

given to them by the beneficent Father of us all, making them inherent 

and inalienable. The Republican party having acted in that way and 

having made these pleas for this resistance now, after all that, come and 

charge those of us who have been in from the beginning with being laggards not to be trusted, and seek to screen themselves in a change of 

attitude by hocus-pocus and philological enigma. It is murder. Oh, 

it is every~hing; it is a stabbing of the Constitution; it is the destruction of the h_onor, the interest, and dignity of the American people to 

violate a treaty, but it is all right if you will just take a knife and instead of cutting off a little portion of the finger cut the treaty's throat; 

that is all ri~ht. 

Mr. President, I have detained the Sen~:~ te longer than I expected 

upon this matter, and I have said about all I desire to say on it. now. 

If the debate shall be continued. I may say something more hereafter. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I do not intend to take up the 

time of the Senate at any length, because I desire to have a vote on 

the bill this evening. 

Mr. VEST. Will the Senator from Oregon permit me just a second? 

I want to state to him that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MoRGAN] 

was obliged to leave the Chamber while the Senator from Mississippi 

was speaking. He said to me that he desired to address the Senate 

upon this bill, and he asked ine to prefer the request that the bill should 

lie over until to-morrow and be printed. 

Mr. MITCHELL; Then let me say a few words now in reply to the 

Senator from Mississippi. 

Mr. VEST. It is now half past 5, and if it would suit the convenience of the Senator from Oregon he can take the :floor, and we can 

have the bill printed and the debate can go on in the morning. I am 

as anxious to vote for the bill as he is, but it is hardly possible to get 

a vote this evening. We have not a quorum, and the yeas and nays 

will be called on the passage of the pill. If it will suit the convenience 

of Senators on the other side, we can let the bill be printed and go oYer 

until tO-morrow. 

1\Ir. MITCHELL. I prefer to say what I intend to say right now. 

The Senator from Mississippi declined to yield on a statement made by 

myself that in my judgment he had misrepresented the facts. I desire 

to correct that Senator in his statement of facts, and it-was a statement, 

by the way, upon which he based the hour's speech that he has just 

concluded. He started out with the premise that when the Burlingame treaty was entered into there were no Chinamen in this country. 

On surprise being expressed by the Senator from Colorado at that statement, he modified it, as I remember, by saying that there were at len !; 

but very few here then, and then he proceeded to state that it was by 

virtue of the provisions of the Burlingame treaty that the door was 

opened for Chinese immigration to this country, and he attempted to 

charge the responsibility of that legislation upon the Republican party. 

Now, Mr. President, I bold in my hand the statistics showing tho 

exact number of Chinese who had oome into this country prior to the 

existence of the Burlingame treaty at the one port of San Francisco 

alone. I have not only the total number, which was 141,800, but I 

have here the number in the year 1850, eighteen years before the Burlingame treaty was made, and I have also here_ the number who came 

each and every year between 1850 and the time when the Burlingame 

treaty went into effect. 

There were in this country 10,000 Chinese prior to the year 1852 who 

had come in at the port of San Francisco alone, to say nothing of the 

thousand, perhaps, who had come in at other pori;,s. In the year 1852 

there came in at that port alone 20,026; in 1853, 4,270 came; in 1854, 

16,084 came; in 1855, 3,329; in 1856, 4,907; in 1857, 5,924; 1858, 

5,427; 1859, 3,175; 1860, 7,341; 1861, 8,430; 1862, 8,175; 1863, 6,432; 

1864, 2,682; 1865, 3,095; 1866, 2,242; 1867, 4,290; 1863, before the 

treaty. 11,081; 1869, before the treaty went into effect, 14,990; making a tOtal of 141,800 Chinese who bad entered the limits of the United 

States at the one port of San Francisco alone before the Burlingame 

treaty was made. So the basis for all the talk h ere to-day made by 

the Senator from Mississippi to the effect that the Republican party 

opened the door to the immigration of Chinese to this country falls to 

the ground. 

The very reverse of the charge made by the Senator from Mississippi 

in reference to the part.y and the men who invited Chinese immigration 

to this country is true. I can tell the Senator who it was in San Francisco and in the State of C~lifomia who first gave countenance in most 

emphatic, direct, and influential terms to the immigration of Chinese 

to this country. In 1849 Peter H. Burnett was governor of the State 

of California. He resigned and one John McDougal, a Southern Democntt, succeeded, he being lieutenant-governor, to the position of governor 

in that State; and in 1851 or 1852 that same Democratic governor and 

representative from the South, a native of the South and a representative of Southern feeling and of Southern interests in the State of California, delivered a message to the Legislature of that State in which 

he referred to the Chinese as the "most desirable of our a-dopted citizens." He was the first man in the UnltedStates of America who ever 

referred to Chinese immigrants as beini the most desirable of our 
8226 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. SEPTEl\IBER 3, 

adopted citizens, or us being desirable at all as citizens. He was a 

Democrat, the head of the Democratic party in California, representing Southern interests and Southern sentiment, and was the go\ernor of the State of California. 

That great Democrat (and be was a great man in his way, great in 

intellect, I believe afterwards a member of this body), according to the 

sentiments expressed in his message, preferred the Chinese to the thousands of worthy Irish and German, and Scandinavians and Norwegians 

and English, and to all other of our adopted citizens, by stating in a 

Siic'tte paper that they, the Chinese, were the ''most desirable of our 

adopted citizens." That sentiment, that expression, that movement, 

if you please, upon the part of the Democratic governor of the Sbte of 

California in 1851, or perhaps it was 1852, had its fruit in the Legislature succeeding, which was a Democratic Le,oislature by the way. 

Archibald Peachy, I believe, another Southern man, another Democrat, a leading member of the Assembly of the State of California at 

that time, a leader of his party, introduced a bill into the Democratic 

Assembly providing for. the affirmation or legalizing in the United 

States of contracts 1or labor made in foreign countries. The object of 

that bill was to make valid in the State of California and in the United 

States of America contracts made with the Chinese for cooly labor 

ranging from two to three and five years, by which coolies were to be 

brought to this country to work in competition with the laborers of 

California for wages at from $8 to $12 a month and that at a time when 

the ordinary common laborer in the city of San Francisco and in the 

State of California coulq receive $3 a day for his labor,or$90 a month. 

That bill passed the Democratic Assembly of the State of California. 

Mr. STEW ART. Every Democrat voted for it. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Every Democrat in that House, as suggested by 

the Senatar from Nevada, voted for it. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

MONDAY, Septembe·r 3, 1888. 

The House met at 12 o'clock-m. Prayer by Rev. J. H. CUTHBERT, 

D. D. 

The Journal of the proceeding.;; of Saturday last was read and approved. 

CHINESE DDHGRATIOX. 

Mr. SCOTT. I ask unanimous consent to introduce a bill for immediate consideration. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. Let the bill be read. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from .Pennsylvania [Jtir. SCOT!'] 

asks unanimous consent to intrpduce a bill for present consideration. 

It will be read, after which the Chair will ask for objection. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

A supplement to an act entitled "An act to execute certain treaty stipulations 

relating to Chinese," approved the 6th day of May, 1!!8~. 

Be it enacled, etc., That from and after the pa.ssa~e of this act it shall be unlawful for any Chinese laborer who shall at any time heretofore have been or may now or hereafter be a r esident within the United States, and who shall have departed or shall depart therefrom, and shall not have returned before the passage of this act, to return to or remain in the United States. 

SEc. 2. That no certificates of identity provided for in the fourth or fifth sec- tions of the act to which this is a supplement shall hereafter be issued· and every certificate heretofore issued in pursuance thereof is hereby declared void 

and of no effect; and the Chinese laborer claiming admission by virtue thereof 

shall not be permitted to enter the United States. 

SEc. 3. That all the duties prescribed, liabilities, penalties, and forfeitures 1m· posed, and the powers conferred, by the second, tenth, elevent·h, and twelfth 

sections of the act to which this is a supplement are hereby extended and made 

applicable to the provisions of this act. SEc. 4. Tbat all such part or parts of the act to which this is a supplement as are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. Mr. STEWART. And every Whig voted against it. 

Mr . . MITCHELL. And every Whig voted against it. The bill went The SPEAKER. Is there objection? The Chair bears none. 

to the Senate and there, thank God, it was defeated by who? By one The bill (H. R. 11336) was read a first and second time. 

Republican Whig and one Democrat-old Philip Roach, I believe. 1\Ir. EZRA B. TAYLOR. I should like--

' Mr. STEW ART. No; Roach was for it. J\fr. SCOTT. I have not surrendered the floor. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I am mistaken, then! about that. I supposed ML- Mr. JACKSON. I do not wish to object. I merely wish to inquire 

Roa h had given his influence against it, but I am eorrected ·in that. what is the purpose of this legislation. We have recently passed a 

Then the man who led the opposition to the bill was David C. Broderick. general act on this subject. · Mr. STEWART. He was the man whQ defeated it. Mr. SCOTT. IftheHousewillpermitme, Mr. Speaker,Iwillendcavor 

Jt1r.JtiTTCHELL. .And a leading Whig whose name I do not remem- to explain the object of this bill and what is ex1>ected to be accombm· now, representing the city of San Francisco in the State Legislature. . plished by it. It will be necessary to refer in this connection to the 

Mr. STEW ART. Dingly was the \Yhig. treaty of 1880 between the United States and China and the treaty 

])llr. JtiiTCHELL. When the Senator from Mississippi therefore gets which has lately been negotiated but not yet ratified. This bill does 

up here in his defiant way and charges the Republican party of this not conflict in any way with any treaty stipulations now existing becountry and the Republicans of this country with opening the door to tween the United States and China. ltmerelyprol?oses under certain 

Chinese immigration to this country and inviting Chinese immigra- conditions to prohibit Chinese laborers from coming into the United 

tion to this country, he simply proclaims to the world his own igno- States. If the treaty recently negotiated has been rejected by the 

ranee of what be is talking about, or else he is not as careful as .he Chinese Government, then this bill is essential, and is the only possible 

should be in refrainin~ from knowingly misrepresenting the facts. way by which Chinese laborers can be kept out of the United States. 

The door to Chinese immigration was opened by the Democratic party Mr. JACKSON. I have no objection to the consideration of the 

of California in the manner I have stated: and that is all I desire to bill. 

say in reference to the matter, as I am anxious for a vote on the final Mr. SCOTT. I have not yielded the floor. 

passage of the pending bill. Mr. PAYSON. I desire to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania 

Mr. TELLER. Mr. Presiden~ [Mr. ScoTT] whether this bill has been submitted to the members on 

Mr. CULLOU. Will the Senator from Colorado allow me to make this side from the State of California? 

a motion to adjourn? Mr. SCOTT. No, sir; it has not been. It is now submitted to them. 

Mr. TELLER. I will, retaining the floor. Mr. P A.YSON. Then it is offered for present consideration. I now 

1\fr. CULLOM. I move that the Senate adjourn. see the gentleman from California [Mr. MORROW] in his place. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before the Chair submits the motion Mr. MORROW. I should like to have a moment to examine the prohe will suggest that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEsT] has re- visions of this bill. . _ 

quested that the bill be printed. I The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania states that be 

Mr. VEST. Yes, let that order be made. has not yet yielded the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there he no objection, it will be so 1\ir. SCOTT. I desire to call attention to what this bill proposes to 

ordered. do. Under sections 4 and 5 of the statute of 1882, enacted in conMESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. formitywitb the treatyof1880, it was provided that a Chinaman then 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. T. 0. TOWLES, a resid~nt of the United S~ates might, under certain conditions, leave 

its ChiefCJerk, announced that the House had pa.ssed the bill (S. 186) to t~ w Um~ed States, go to Chin_a and return, bu_t was to d<? s~ und~r ~ cer- amend section 1225 of the Revised Statutes concerning details of officers t~fica.te ISsued by the authc;mty of our Gov.ernment certifYing b1s .Idenofthe Army and Navy to educational institutions, and so forth, with ttty ~nd thll;t he was a res1d.ent o~ the Uruted States. Under t~ au- amendments in which it requested the concurrence of t he Senate thonty, wh1ch our treaty stipulations under the treaty of 1880 did not · · require us to give, a Chinaman could take bis certificate and return to 

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED. China; and as the truth is a merchantable commodity from a Chinese 

The message also announced that the Speaker of the House had signed point of view, those certificates were in many instances sold to Chinathe enrolled joint resolution (H. Res. 14) to authorize the Secretary of men who had never been in this country, who took them and came to 

the Interior to certify lands to the State of Kansas for the benefit of the United States in violation of the law. When a Chinaman reached 

agriculture and the mechanic arts. the port of San Francisco the duty of the collector of the port under 

ADl\!ISSION OF WASHINGTO~. the law was to determine his identity; and when the collector by posMr. PLATT. I ask that the unfinished business be laid before the itive evidence kne.w that the Chinaman offering the certiiicate was not 

Senate. , the person to whom it had been originally issued, the collector at once 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will lay before the Senate required such Chinaman to leave the country. But it was just here 

the unfinished business, which is the bill (S. 12) to provide for the that the United States courts came in and upon habeas corJ?US proformation and admission into the Union of the State of Washington, ceerungs declared in many instances that the Chinaman offering the 

and for other purposes. certificate waa the original owner. By this process Chinese laborers by 

Mr. CULLOM. I move that the Senate adjourn. the thousands have been permitted to come to the United States fraudThe motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o'clock :md 40 minutes p. m.) ulently under certificates which bad never been issued to them. 

the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Tuesday, September 4, 1888, at If, sir, the report in regard to the rejection of the treaty by China is 

12 o'clock meridian. 1 a correct one, orwhetherChina ratifies the treaty hereafter or not, there