Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1882-04-07

at Chicago. A majority Of Republican.
may have come TO think that immigra-
tion ought 70 be regulated. restricted o,
! even suspended, but there is no adequate
reason to think they have vet reached
the belief that it ought to be prohibited
outright for almost a generation. The
Presidents message is moderate in tone
and scope. and does him great credit.
What IL Thought In Washinston.
NEW. YORK, April 6.-Ths Trij1.e's
Washington correspondent on the veto
says: The Republicans, as is well
known. are divided in regard to the
merits of the bill, and even those who
favo, it in its present form, or in any
modified form. were not prepared to
take stand withou. reflection on the
question of sustaining the veto Of the
President. On the other hand, Demo-
Gratis who have no motive in connection
with 1t, except to win favor for their
party with the masses of the Pacific
coast, desire to force on the measure.
knowing that it cannot be carried over
the Presidents veto, but that opposing
votes will be nearly. if not quite, all
from the Republican side, If. however,
this subject is referred to the Committee
on Foreign Relations, it is. possible that
modified bill ixing re-
striction to Chinese immigration
for shorter period than 20 years will
be reported and passed by the Senate.
A motion to lay on the table was put
and carried.
Of course, if the Democrats could now
prevent the passage of another Chinese
bill without seeming to be responsible
for its failure, they would be glad to do
so. Their record is already made in its
favor, and it is defeated by the veto
of Republican President and is left
open and the Chinese sentiment of the
Pacific coast will be entered for the
Democrats, Tut such a scheme would
hardly be practicable if they can be
forced to vote without difficulty in the
Senate on modified Chinese bill, and
they will be compelled to support or lose
what capital they think they gained by
supporting the bill before. The talked
OF obstruction in the House comes from
the original opponents Of the bill. Some
members who voted for it say that
they did not believe any new
bill could be passed. The opponents of
anti Chinese legislation had been greatly
encouraged by the sentiment developed
throughout the country by the demand
for veto, and would resist any bill.
This, however. seemed to be a gloomy
view, born Of first disappointment over
the veto. 1t is known tho bill would
have comman ded larger vote in the
House if it had not been for tho 20
years limitation. The amendment Of
fered in the House for 10 years limit
alton received one hundred yles 81 of
which were afterwards cast against the
bill. 1t is known that q number of
these would have been given for it if the
limit had been ten years. It is reason
able to suppose, therefore, that a 10
years or five years limitation will re-
ceive an increased vote. The matter
will probably not take shape, however.
for some time. The tone of comment
on the message among Eastern Repub-
lican papers is generally favorable. All
are agreed that it states what the Presi-
dent has to say, clearly, concisely and
fOrcibly.
New England Senators. while they
are gratified that the measure was We
toed, and that new one must be made
less Objectionable than the one against
which they struggled In vain, say that
the veto message proves that the Presi-
dent is with the Pacific Coast in princi-
pie, and only disagrces with them over
the length Of time to which restriction
shall be carried.
The one chief objection to the meas
ure was because of its violation of the
principles of universal freedom, by
which all men have the right to go
where they please, and seek happiness
and profit in their own chosen way.
Pacific Coast people are of course dis
heartened and downcast. They de-
clare that tho veto means the loss to the
Republican party of California, Oregon
and Nevada, and some of them so so far
as to say that the Republican party has
elected its last President.