National Republican., 1883-10-10

or cndanger its good order, but expressly
stipulating shat its provisions should not
apply to other classes coming to the United
States.
Tho act Of May 6, 1882, followed this new
treaty, and in speaking of 1t in the case of the
Chinese merchant which was before us last
year. we sail--rororring to merchants rs q
Class-that it WAS framed in supposed con-
formity with the provisions Of the treaty, and
that in the inhoitons which 1t imposes upon
the immigration of Chinese, there was no
purpose expressed in terms TO go beyond the
Limitations Of tho treaty. Undoubtedly, so
far as the subjects of China are concerned, no
purpose is shown by tho act to go beyond
those limitations, and that is ali that was in.
tended by language which has been supposed
to havO "a broader meaning.
IL was felt necessary TO obtain modihca-
tion of the treaty with China before lcgs-
lating with reference to tho immigration of
Chinese. The government Of China, without
such modification, would have been just
ground of complaint. IL was never supposed
that any of the European governments having
within their possessions in the east Chinese
subjects would make any complaint TO their
exclusion from our country. IL was well
known that the English colonies in Australia
had either entirely excluded or had placed
under very narrow restrictions the immigra-
ton of Chinese into them, without any
complaints there from the conflict of white
with Chinese labor had been as great and as
strongly expressed rs any which ever arose in
this state. Legislation by congress excluding or
restricting the immigration would never have
been so long delayed except from desire not
to offend the Chinese government. 1t was
not deemed necessary to negotiate with other
governments with respect to Chinese within
their borders. So when the act of congress
was passed, it had q double purpose. 1t was
to carry out rs its title indicates, certain
treaty stipulations with China, and also to ex-
clude Chinese laborers coming from any part
of the world. Its trainers knew, as we all
knew, that the island OF Hong Kong would
pour Chinese laborers into our country every
year in unnumbered thousands, unless they
also were covered by the restriction act. So
the act declares in its first section that from
and after the expiration of ninety days from
it's passage, and until the expiration of ten
years, the coming of Chinese labOrers to the
Unteed States, without any Limitation of the
country from which they might come, is sus-
pended, and during such suspension it shall
not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come,
or having come, after the expiration of the
ninety days. to remain within the United
States.
The second section makes it a misdemeauor,
punishable by fine or Imprisonment, or both,
for the master of a vessel knowingly to bring
into tho United States on his vessel, and land,
or permit to be landed, any Chinese laborer
from any foreign port or place. The language
IN these sections is sufficiently broad and
comprehensive to embrace all Chinese labor
ers without regard to the country of which
they may be subjects. And the twelfth sec
tion declares that any Chinese person found
unlawfully within the United States shall be
removed therefrom by direction of the presi-
dent to the country from whence he came
not necessarily to China.
Our attention has been called to o recent
decision of judges Lowell and Nelson, of the
circuit court of the United States for the
district of Massachusetts, in which a different
conclusion was reached by them. These
judges considered that the act of congress
was simply intended to give effect to the
stpulations of the supplementary treaty
Undoubtedly, as already said, that was one of
its objects; but it is very evident, both from
the circumstaces under which it was passed
and from its language, that it had still
further object. The construction which we
give renders all its provisions consistent
with each other. The whole purpose of the
law to exclude Chinese laborers from the
state would be defeated by any other con-
struction.
The release of the petitioner must be de-
nied and he must be returned to the ship
from which he was taken. And it is so or
dered,