National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-02-22
rHH iNri-COoLfH H.LL.
some Very Pertinent Objections Thereto

some Very Pertinent Objections Thereto.
From the Chicago Tribune
The Senate debate on the bill limiting the
transportation Of Chinese to the United States
to not exceeding fifteen persons by any one
vessel was an earnest one. Stripped Of its
scntimcntalism, the opposition to the bill could
really interpose no valid objection to either
the legality or the cxpodiency of tho legisla-
tion. 1t will be noticed that the further re-
moved from personal contact with the Chinese
the more intense was the objection TO the cx-
clusion Of the Coolie serls aud the stronger
was the sentimcntality which demanded for
them free and unlimited admission to this
country. The advocates and friends of Coolie
immigration objected to the law on several
grounds, the principal Of which may be stated
as follows:
| a. That our intercourse with China is reg.
ulated by treaty, and that Congress had no
power to thus abrOgate q trP0ty. (2.l That IL
invites retaliation by China. (3.) That until
lately we had no trade with China, and that
| the trade, especially in cotton manufactures,
| transferred recently to this country may be
given back to Great Britain. a. That the
large American population in China may be, in
retaliation, subjected to insults and loss of
business, if not expulsion. (5) That the pros
pectivc trado with the hundreds of millions of
Chinese will be lost to the United States for
ever. o. That IL is n denial of hospitality
aud right of asylum which are extended to all
other people.
These objections are altogether moro flnci.
ful than substantial In the first place, every
nation has of necessity the inherent right to
regulate aud control tho migration to and resi-
dcnce of people of foreign countries within its
limits, This power is exercsedby every gov
ernment, and cannot be justly questioned. To
argue otherwise would be to contend that a
government may barter or cedc away its own
power to regulate and govern its own domestic
policy. The right to abrogate q treaty is also
unquestionable; when the abrogatiOn inter
fcres with no property contract, the power Is
absolute. Notices may be required as an act
of Gourtscy, but they are not essential, and in
the Chinese treaty mono is required.
The objection to tho bill because our trade
with China is alleged to DO increasing es
pecially in exports of American cotton goods
and that this uniriendly action may have the
effect Of giving that trade back to England, Il
really OF no practical force. Until within &
few years we have bought largely of tea ant
silk from China, and have paid for them main
ly in silver. The trade was in the interest o
China. Our purchases from China for the yea
ending June 30, 1871, amounted to Sll,1il,447
against which we exported only 81 ,6S6,000 II
: merchandise, and for the balance paid IL
direct exports Of silver or in gold bills on Lon
don. Since then we have increased our export
of cotton manufactures to China, just as w
have increased such exports to other cOun
tries
But this increase has not been due to am
friendship or newborn affection on the part o
the Chinese for the Americans, but is duo b
= the same reason which has enabled us TO sci
4 our goods in England, and that is that we ar
! able to oiIer better goods for less money thai
our competitors. When the Chinese can bu,
Q our -four cheaper than they can get IL fron
5 Chill or Australia they buy Of us; when the.
. can buy American cotton goods cheaper thai
: they can buy British goods of equal quait!
i they buy of US, and not otherwise; and tia
!. man knows little Of human nature who a'
, sumes that the Chinese will pay more for ilou
= and more for cotton goods to other cOuntIie
e than thoy eau get the -four and cotton for i
j. this country. SO IL Is not at all likely that W
will lose any market in China for America
goods so long as we shall be able TO sell good
I cheaper than like goods can be obtained else
where.
| Suppose that China closes all the treat
, ports against American vessels and America
goods. In that case we will have merely
:. transfer our business TO Hong Kong, Il FIRE
!, port, the property of Great Britain, and ia
f. principal seat of the British Chinese trade.
- The relative positions of Chinese in til
II country and of Americans in China do NJ
" offer much room for retalatory legislation b
!; the Chinese. There are from 100000 TO 10000
Chinese in the United States. There are 81
Il Americans in China at last account This hi
d passed by Congress does not exclude an
. Coolies now here It does not prohibit Other
coming il simply limits the immigration
b fifteen persons by any one vessel. The Coolit
n in this country have the liberty to go an!
=. where within the limits of the United State
to engage in any branch of trade, or profession
= or occupation. Every business is open to then
rs The Americans in China have no such liber,
a They are compelled TO reside at certain port
=, They are not free TO travel. There are no
II perhaps, over fifty Americans who go to Chin
II annually to reside So the American restriction
Ie placed ON Chinese immigration II initiate
# by tho Chinese government would not ser
:, ously affect tho American population prcsen
i or prospective in China.
s. our principal imports from China are tc