The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1879-02-06
n. Y. Sun.
A Treaty-Breaking Bill.

Effigy Sargent, the sands of whose Sen
atorial life have nearly run out, instead
of applying the scant remnant of his Of
ficial days to making such reparation as
may be for his official sins, devotes it ap-
parently to another crusade against the
Cinnamon.
AntiChinese legislation has irresistible
attractions for some statesmen because
John Chinaman does not vote and hence
the Pacific Coast Congressman, in tramp
ling on him, may please many constitu-
ents. without having to fear a Mongolia n
bolt when offering himself for reelection.
These disadvantages of the Chinese seem
also to have vividly impressed Mr.. Hayes,
who is confidently expected to sign any
anti Chinese act which their enemies can
get passed.
But the bill which Effigy Sargent intro
duced into the Senate and Mr.. Willis
sin ultaneously into the House, ought not
to be passed, because, outside of other
reasons, it proposes to violate treaty.
Article of the Burlingame treaty,
drawn up in Washington little more
than ten years ago, uses the following
language:
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 advantage of the free migra-
tion and emigration Of their citizens and
subjects respectively, from one country
to the other, for the purpose of curiosity
| of trade, or a permanent residence.
This article of agreement, which is per-
fectly sound and American in doctrine,
and was drawn up by an American, is, it
should be further observed, little more
than a reiteration of like language con-
tanned in previous treaties between the
same countries. Article 6 of the same
Burlingame treaty gives the following
guarantees to Chinese immigrants asriv-
ing here:
Chinese subjects visiting or residing g
in the United States shall enjoy the same
immunities, privileges, and exemptions,
in respect to travel or residence, as may
there be enjoyed by the citizens or sub
jects of the most favored nation; but
nothing herein contained shall be held
to confer naturalization upon citizens of
the United States in China, nor upon the
subjects of China in the United States
The bill now introduced into Con gress
plainly violates both these treaty provis-
'ons, for it declares that no shipmaster
shall take aboard at any point in China
or elsewhere more than fifteen Chinese
passengers, with intent to bring them
within the United States, or shall so bring
them Violating this law is made q mis-.
demeanor, punishable by six months
imprisonment and 500 fine To further
enforce this restriction, the shipmaster is
required to report on his arrival a sworn
list of all passengers, and is liable to
equal line and imprisonment for neglect
m CT n
the vessel.
There is no doubt that this is less
discreditable bill than the one of last
winter, which actually proposed TO visit
the offence of coming to the United
States on the ignorant Chinaman, max
ing him liable to a head tax of $3.50, and
then declaring that leach subject of Chi
ma who enters the United States without
paying the aforesaid tax shall be punish
ed by Imprisonment of not less than HUe gears
at hard labor in the State prison OF the
State where the offence was committed.
AS few of the Cinnamon arriving at San
Francisco have $780, this bill would have
filled the California prisons, which is per-
haps one reason why we now see the
present substitute, fning and imprisor-
ing the shipmaster instead of the passen-
ger
Dut, 80 Idl ao LuS treaty SOS5i Inc pres
ent law violates it not less directly than
the other; it is aimed against the inal-
ienable right of subject of China to
change his home, and the advantage of
free emigration; it withholds from Mon
golian visitors the rights of entrance and
travel that are accorded to the Caucasian.
Indeed, the House Committee, in report
ing the BILL admit that it contravenes
the treaty, and excuse the fact on the
ground that "thi8 whole question is not
one Of right, but Of policy"
That is not the whole question. Even
if dozen years ago the question OF Chi
nese immigration was purely one of policy,
it took on the character OF question of
right when it became the basis of
solemn treaty. That treaty exists to-day,
treaty urged by the United States, not