New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-04-06
CHINESE DT1NIGRdT[ON.

Senator Miller has rentrOduccd the Chinese
bill in the Senate. making no change save the
reduction of tie period of suspension OF lmml-
grafton from twenty years to ten. This meets
the main objection of the President but 1t
would have been good policy to have modified
the passport requirements and the skilled labor
provisions so as to bring them into harmony
with the Presidents views and the sensible ex-
pressions Of the Chinese Minister. Perhaps,
however, the friends of the bill thought it best
to leave these changes to be made by amend
ment in the Senate. The excited comments OF
the Pacific Coast newspapers on Il veto may
possibly have restrained the Senators from that
section from taking any steps which might look
like unnecessary concession.
Legislation in haste is apt to be followed by
repentance at leisure. There has been some
haste and much temper in the action OF Con-
grCss thus far on the question Of Chinese inn
migration, and there is a strong probability
that the bill. if it had passed without any
change, would have been remembered with
shame and confusion of face by members who
have respect for international obligations.
We are not at liberty to deal with the qucs-
ton of Chinese immigration just as if it were
IL
honor by treaty stipulations. To the extent
that these stipulations permit, but not any
further, this country is at liberty to limit or
regulate" this class of immigration. But II
would be mean abuse of power, and in the
end foolish and suicidal step to go beyond
the right recognized in the existing treaty.
Because China Is not accounted strong in naval
warfare, it is possible to do great injustice
with impunity, but it would be meanness Us
we'll rs injustice to take advantage of our
position, and in the end 1t would react with
disastrous effect upon our commerce.
The bill as it stands is really prohibition,
not regulation or Imitation of Chinese I'M
migration. If this is true il goes beyond the
power OF the United States in honorable com
pliance with treaty obligations. This Nation
ought to be ashamed OF itself if it does not
regard with peculiar stricncss and fidelity its
agreements with those Nations which are
thought to he unable to enforce their claims
by arms. If China is accounted one OF those,
that is an especial reason for regarding the
more carefully and scrupulously the letter of
our obligations in all dealings with that coun-
try. Many years ago we sought and secured
important commercial advantages by means of
a treaty o. dmlly WIN Chlna. recently
the terms of our intercourse have been
modified by later treaty, but we still
retain important commercial advantages be-
cause we have bound ourselves to OBJ
serve certain agreements on our part in
all dealings with that country. Any violation
of these agreements, any disregard of their
spirit or letter, would not only dishonor the
United States, but subject the country to
serious loss on account of the forfeiture of
commercial advantages Let it be granted, for
the sake of argument, that everything ought
to be done that we have a right to do to ex
clude or restrict Chinese immigration. The
question remains, whether this bill does not
attempt to do just what we have no right to
d0-the very thing that China would have re-
fused to assent to if intentions had been
honestly stated.