The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1869-09-11
SENATOR WILLIAMS ON THE
CHINESE TREATY.

and then shows wherein it was amend
ed by the Senate. His excuse for the
publication is ga desire to correct
misapprehension which seems to have
obtained with the democratic press.
In what does that misapprehension
consist 7 If Mr.. Williams had only
been explicit upon this subject his
readers could better have determined
whether he had succeeded in removing
the erroneous impression.
Does Mr.. Williams mean to be un-
derstood as saying that it is misap-
prehension to interpret the treaty rs
giving the Chinese an equal footing in
this country with all other emigrants,
the right to naturalization, only, ex-
ceptedG
Why does he not give MS his own
opinion upon the meaning of the
treaty instead of employing q great
deal of language for the purpose
of saying nothing.
We ask the reader to compare Art.
s of the treaty, published in Mr.. VIII
Hams letter, with the Amendment
suggested by that gentleman and
agreed to by the Senate. The Article
as it originally stood gave to Chinese
residents certain rights with respect to
public schools greater than those now
possessed by any other class of resi-
dents-rights which virtually placed
these schools beyond the control of
the public so far as their relations with
the Chinese were concerned. The
amendment provides that "Chinese
subjects shall enjoy all the privileges
of the public educational institutions,
under the control of the Government
of the United States, which are enjoy
ed in the respective countries China
and Americal by citizens or subjects Of
The nloa farored nations"
That is explicit enough. So far as
educational interests go. the Chinaman
stands upon the same footing in Amer
lea as the e1nigrant from Germany,
England, France or any Of The mosi
fqrorcd nations. Mr.. Williams GER
tainly,don't mean to say that there is
any ''misapprehension" about that!
Then in respect Of other rights, Art.
6 as quoted in the Senator's letter,
says that the "Chinese subjects resid-
ping in the United States shall enjoy
the same privileges, immunities and
exemptions in respect to travel or resi-
dence as may be enjoyed by citizens of
the most favored nation. I"
This, too, seems explicit. There is
certainly no need for "misnpprehen-
sion" about that. To know what rights,
additional, the Cinnamon are to ac-
quire by this treaty, it is only neces-
sary to know what the privileges and
immunities of the citizens of the most
favored nations are.
Perhaps Mr.. Williams thinks he has
succeeded in convincing somebody
that the-treaty does not confer natural
ization. Nobody ever claimed that
it did, and if the distinguished gentle
man would only take the trouble to
read democratic newspapers he would
not misapprehend their position upon
. that subject.
Tue treaty naturalizes nobody, but
it places the Asiatic in position to be
naturalized precisely similar to that
enjoyed by citizens of the most favored
nation. The naturalization of thes.
; people under the treaty is thing tia
any Copgre can accomplish, apd tn
fact that the Judiciary Comrnittee Q
the Senate at the last session of Con
gress, reported bill excluding Chi
nese from naturalization, is not hkel
s to be accepted as solution of th
It whole question. The bill has not be
: come a law and never may. If
0 does, the progressive spirit" will nc
e suffer it to remain long upon th
1t Statute books.
d We all remember the discussion ha
ie in the Senate, February 6, 1869, whic
IS clearly manifested the temper of thi
h body. The 18th Amendment bein
It under consideration Mr.. Corbett pr
posed this Amendment
8: "But Cinnamon not born in the United State
and Indians not taxed, shall not be deemed
made citizens"
2 If it really was and is not intende
e to make these people citizens, no
'l easily the question SO far as it relate
+ to those not born here, could ha1
been settled by the adoption of Co
8 belts Amendment. That would hav
It saved 'tmisapprehension. It woul
/ have saved Mr.. Williams the necessit
Is of writing this letter. Perhaps M
7 Corbett or Mr.. Williams, or any gel
g tleman of the Radical party will te
j us why it was not adopted?
4 Inthe debate thatfollowed upon tn
g Amendment, Mr.. Corbett said he VI
g satisfied ''that it is merely questic
+ of time, a year or two perhaps, whc