Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-04-06
AN ISSUE OF FACT.


missioners and the Chinese diplomatists
who framed it had in their minds at the
time. The treaty itself makes the United
States Congress the sole judge as to The
expediency of suspending Chinese immi-
grafton, and agrees that if the said Con-
gress shall SO determine it may at any
time suspend this immigration, "for
reasonable period" The question there
fore arises as to what is meant by rea.
sonable period, and it is obvious that so
loose and elastic phrase ought not to
have been employed in document which
was TO be the basis and the measure of leg
islation. The present conjuncture in fact
is an impeachment of the treaty, and that
this is so is proved by the fact that the
President, endeavoriDg to guide himself
not alone by this instrument, but by the
recorded minutes of the precedent nego
tiations, has reached q conclusion which
one of the American Commissioners, Mr..
John F. Swift, declares to be altogether
contrary to the understanding arrived at
between the contracting parties. In the
memoranda accompanying the Presidents
veto message, which We publish this
morning, he dwells with emphasis upon
theofficial record of the negotiations with
China, as showing that twenty year sus-
pension cannot be considered fair fulfill
ment of the provisions of the treaty.
On the other hand, Mr.. Swift, in an in
terview with a reporter of the San Fran
cisco Call, says that much longer period
than twenty years was contemplated, and
that the Chinese officials were thoroughly
reconcled to such suspension, and fully
expected it. Mr.. Swift in this interview
says that the Chinese officials were actu-
"ally more alive to the magnitude which
"the evil we had pointed out might grow
"to than even the people here are.
"They were ready to discuss the time for
(which the suspension should be made
'' the only thing they were unwilling to do
was to make treaty stipulation prohib-
"iting their people for all time from CON-
ing to America. They did not want it
to go forth that they had agreed to stop
"their people from ever going to America,
"unless it was also agreed that Americans
"should not go to China. and to that we
could not agree. But they were willing
to agree to any suspension which in its
wisdom our Government thought would
be necessary to remedy the evil. They
"only asked, When the evil is remedied,
when the time arrives that you would
''not suffer from Chinese immigration,
''' then we trust to your good faith to re.
"' move the restriction, at least in such a
"' degree that some of our people mag go
and come. 1t was thoroughly discussed
"and understood that the suspension
"should be for such length of time as
" would remove the inconvenience Of which
eve complained, and that suspension for
g. whole generation, thirty three years,
would be necessary to do that" Mr..
Swift further says 81 fully hoped for
suspension of thirty years. and the Chi
nese Government would not have con.
" sidered the good faith of the treaty tres.
passed upon if the suspension bad been
for fifty years, or even longer"
This is remarkable and most import.
ant statement, but perhaps the most re-
markable thing about it is that it should
not have been made until the bill had been
vetoed. It appears, however, that the
impression which one at least of the three
Commissioners brought away with him,
not only finds no reflection in the treaty,
but has also failed to be reflected in the
records of the negotiation with the Chinese
officials. President Arthur, examining
these records to ascertain what the treaty
means, found there statements which con.
vineed him that a suspension of twenty
years would be regarded in China as vio-
lation of the treaty stipulations. Mr..
Swift, who conducted these very negotia-
tons, declares positively that the Chinese
Government would have been perfectly
satisfied had the suspension been extended
to fifty years. There is a conflict here
which evidently calls for serious investi-
cation. 1t is impossible to doubt that the
President has drawn from the documents
at his command diametrically opposite
conclusion to that entertained by Mr..
Swift The latter, having been one of the
Commissioners to China is certainly good
authority. But how is it that the records
of the negotiation do not present his view
OF the understanding reached with the
Chinese Government and how is it that
this view was not clearly and unambigu.
ously incorporated in the treaty?
If the Chinese Government was perfectly
willing that the emigration Of it's subjects
to the United States should be suspended
for thirty, forty, or fifty years, why did
not the Commissioners fix specific period
for the suspension, and thus secure the OBJ
ject fer which they were sent to China
As it is, confusion and Misunderstanding
appear to have attended the whole business.
Here we have had long controversy over
the duration of the suspension, ending
with Presidential veto based upon sup
posed regard for treaty stipulations, and
after it is all over one of the Commissioners
who framed the treaty tells the public that
this question OF the period of suspension
was thoroughly discussed with the Chinese
officials, and that they would not have OBJ
jected to term of fifty years. This is an
extraordinary muddle, certainly. Surely
it was the duty of the Commissioners to
explain fully to their own Government the
spirit aud scope OF the negotiations.
/ Surely it was their duty to make
this question Of the extent of the
suspension perfectly clear at Washing
ton. Yet if Mr.. Swift's recollection
of the facts is to be relied upon
the United States Government has been
somehow kept in the dark as to the most
/ important circumstances Of the Mission,