Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-04-06

supreme court of the United States. The
facts did not justify the presidents assump.
| ton to know the meaning of the treaty. We
must look to the treaty Itself.
To go back to find what was lurking in the
mind of the commissioner prior to his final
| agreement is to embark upon a sea of such un'
| certainty that an Interpretation may be found
! for any construction which is sought to be
| given the instrument. There was no safety
for either contracting party of the treaty
| itself, solemnly signed and sealed, was not to
! be held to contain evidence OF its own mean
ing and construction. Ambiguity in the in
strument is to be cleared up from contempt
raneous history, but ambifuity must be estab-
/ lished before we can compel the language of
the treaty to bend to something which pre-
coded it. Promising that he would adopt the
same facts and the same source of facts which
the executive had resorted to, Bayard read at
length from q memoranda of conversations
| between the commissioners pending nsgOtia-
| tons, to show that the Chinese government
and commissioners voluntarily conceded that
| the power to regulate, limit or suspend the
| coming of Chinese laborers into this country
| was by treaty vested solely in the discretion
| Of the government of the United States. Then
the fact was admitted, and proof of the con-
fession was clear and positive. This power
was spoken of in the veto as "unIlateral' and
IL LILY W bO tCluIOOt UOU IL Noo SCuSONSus
not by unilateral vote, but by the consent of
both nations.
He asked special attention to the definition
given by the Chinese representatives to what
they considered to be a reasonable restriction
as to numbers. This was that the government
would have right to forbid greater number
coming in one year than the maximum
departures in the preceding year. and further
that the total of those already here should
ha cvaonIc6 Wor that
less reasonable Limitation upon i'm
migration than twenty years sus-
pension? He submitted the question
to the practical sense of mankind When all
recognized that the great body Of Chinese Ia
borers in California are young men, that their
national existence would be prolonged by
their bettered condition, that as there are
families among them, the average OF loss by
death would be compensated for by natural
increase, we see that their total number In the
country will be substantially the same at the
end of twenty years that it is now, the logi-
cal result of the voluntary concession of the
Chinese authorities amounted not only to
prohibition of the coming of any more of that
class, because the number in this country was
never 10 exceed the total of those here at the
time the treaty was made. Therefore it fol.
lowed that the congressional Interpretation of
the treaty, fixing twenty years as q reasonable
Limitation, was unassailable ard stood a long
way inside of the proposition of the Chinese
themselves, that under no circumstances
should the number of their people in this
country be increased
Congress had not even declared that the
number never should exceed that of those
already here, but simply said that for twenty
years no more should be brought. The veto
adopted precisely that meaning Of the word
"laborers" which was accepted by the com-
mlssioners themselves; that Is to say, that
artisans, meaning skilled laborere, should not
be allowed to come in and return.
Senator Sherman suggested that the use Of
the term "skilled," as applied to laborers,
instead of the word "laborers" alone, as pre-
scribed by the treaty, was one of the objections
to the bill made by the Chinese minister, and
which the president recited. He added it had
not been shown in the correspondence read by
Bayard that the Chinese commissioners ever
consented to that Interpretation of the term.
Bayard replied he would leave that to be
accounted for by the commissioners upon
their own presentations, and that his effort
had been mainly to show that single objec-
tion 10 the twenty years suspension as dis
honorable limitation, was untenable. The
veto was Chinese message from beginning
to end and while ii discoursed upon the value
we had received from the Chinese in building
railroads, It contained not one word of pity
or Reproduction for any wrong the people Of
the Pacific coast had suffered.
The pending question being avoided at the
the request of Garland, the vote upon the
first branch--to refer the bill to the commit
tee on foreign relations ayes Is, noes
80. It was q party vote, except that Cam
erom wis.,, Ingalls,, Jones New, Miller
(Cala.), Plumb, sewell and Teller voted with
the Democrats in the negative, Davis Ill.)
also voted no.
The second braneh--to refer the message
and papers-was also negatived. Ayes -,
noes 90.
On the question shall the bill pass, not
withstandiDg the objections of the president,
the vote was ayes 90, noes 81, SO the bill
failed, two.thirds not having voted in the
affirmative.
The fOIlowinr * the vote in detail