National Republican., 1883-11-03

whatever their views originally were will
expect to sec our government take prompt
and proper measures for the vndication Of It's
rights and tho observance Of good faith by
tho Chinese government and its officials in
our intercourse with that nation.
1t is asked by some of tho pro-coolic jour
nails of the east what we arc going to do
about it. They say that our customs officers
have no discretion in the matter under the
existing law, but must accept as true the tn-
blushing and obvious falschoods contained in
the Chinese certificates. From this we en-
tirely diss mt. 1t is competent for congress
to change the law so as to require moro salts.
factory evidence of the right of the Chinese
immigrant to land under tho treaty. This
at least should be done, and if evidence es-
tablishes the fact of the alleged insolence and
dishonesty of Chinese officials these should
have check Immediately upon the assem-
bin of congress.
But all statutory restrictions upon immi-
grafton will prove ilusory. The Illicit slave
ira Ic Aourished to the extent that it was
prof abl3 so long as slavery existed, and its
successor, the coolio trade, will also thrive SO
long as it brings money into few American
pockets. Where there is no slavery, there is
no slave trade; and when we cease to open
our country to the people from whose coun-
try VIC are virtually excluded, we shall have
no coolic trade. Our contract with China
should be purely commercial, and
our treaty relation purely recip-
about this whole business. The pretensc that
slavers wero bringing negroes from the Afri-
can coast ihrougl the horrors of the mid
die passage" solely for the purpose of Chris
tia zng Them, was not more absurd and
grotesque than the honest popular notion,
industriously cultivated by the mercen-
laborers, that these creatures are coming here
in fulfllment of the human brotherhood and
the divine fatherhood. The pollution they
bring IN kes havoc which is not compensated
by any good done to them. This is not a
reflection upon the superior classes in China,
nor can it ven grate harshly upon the ears
OF their accomplished representatives in Wash
ington. Americans have few rights in China,
and those in but few parts, Why should
we confer upon them privileges they deny to
us? Becauje they condescend to let us
through the Chinese wall into half II
dozen treaty ports" there to en-
gage in commerce only, why should
we throw open to them our whole country
for any class whatever, or any place in it, for
other than purposes of trade? Why not insist
upon a new treaty which shall be fair and
equal exchange of benefits? Upon this sub
ject we can cite most conservative authority,
viz, Justice Field, of the supreme court. He
has never been charged with any sympathy
with the persecution of the Chinese but has,
on the contrary, been tho object of much
hostility because of his writings upon anti.
Chinese state legislation when sitting as
circuit judge in San Francisco. Gen, (now
the Californian of March, 1880, an article on
tho Chinese question, and in n letter to him
commenting that article Justice Field said
! am aware that commercial intercourse with
China is n one-sded affair, and that the English
German, and American merchants arc being
driven out OF the Chinese trade; and that the chi
nese merchants hGU' monoD0lited not only the
foreign commerce, but the navigation of thcil
own coast and the interior waters. Now what il
the remedy? To me 1t seems plain. We have
treaty with the government of China. We fine
that treaty IL its practical workings one-sded. l
is not equal. The Chinese have denied TO ou
people the privilege Of trading URh Me Interior o
China, They open certain ports, known a
treaty ports, and practically deny to on
merchants the right to enter any other
Americans are not allowed to dig in their mines
work on their farms, build railways, navigat,
Streams, obtain franchises, ana are restricted IL
the enjoyment of any but the most limited privi
legos. They are not allowed the freedom Of tn,
country. We may not peremptorily abrogate thi
treaty, because to do SO would be II declaration o
war, but we may say TO the Chinese authorities
that because VIC nnd this treaty works unequalll
and to the disadvantage of our people we desire
to modify II; We may give the required notice o
six months or one year; we may then make an
other treaty, ana give TO the Chinese the privilege
they practically accord to MS, We may say K
them, your people shall only come to the Unite(
States and shall only remain hero for tn
purpose Of general commerce; yoH shall be wei
come to certain ports, and 10 none other; you shal
engage only in foreign trade; you shall be ex
cludGd from all cmpOymGnts not connected witt
or incidental to foreign commerce. you shall b
allowed the privilege of crossing our continen
In pursuit of business you may be welcome +
visit any part of our land you may educate you
youth IN our colleges. But You shall not send Il
us an immigration to engage IN the general in
dusIries Of our country; yon shall not send
population TO become permanent residents in on
country; You shall not come into competition wit
our lGborcrs you shall not engage in mechnnica
and manufacturing employncnts; you shall nc
own or till our agricultural lands nor shall yo
I'll mcnial cmpoymcUts. q Thus the qucs
ton may be solved faliouolly, speedily, aud pcac
fully.
This was written long before the passage
Of the exclusion act 1t would have been
much more thorough and practical moasur
than any legislation. 1t is not too late 10
such views to be considered. Gen. Milloi
who is now senator, and therefore part o
the treaty making power, in reply to tn
letter then addressed him, wrote as follow
under date of March 90, 1850;
Your excellent letter so gratlfed me that coul
not forego the temptation OF showing II to our goo
friend - -; but beg you to consider TN