Morning journal and courier., 1884-07-03
Sourusl suS Guurier.
Thursday. July 3, 1884.
THE NEW ANTI-CHINEsE BILL.

1 THE NEW ANTI-CHINESE BILL. l The San Francisco papers are making a
 great stir about the inefRciency of the anti
 Chinese legislation whose deficiencies tha anti-C Chinese bill which has passed the House is intended to cover. From what these 1 papers say one might think that the Chinese
 were still coming to California in great num- | bers, and that the restrictions placed on their l coming did not restrict. But some facts which came out in the debate In the House on the new bill indicate that the San Fran
 cisco papers do not correctly state the effect
 of the bill of 1882. It appears that from October l, 1882, to March 31, 1884, the total l number of Chinese who arrived in this coun- | try was 455, of whom 287 were merchants, | entitled as such to come here if holding pass ports. And nearly all these arrivals were in | the months prior to January, 1884, and the last five steamers have brought none. The explanation of this is that last fall, long be- fore Congress met, complaint being made that some of ths ''merchants'' got passports
 by means of fraud, and were really laborers,
 the Chinese government took the matter up and stopped the fraud.
 Judge Ogden Hoffman, of San Francisco, said in judicial opinion that from August 6, 1882, to January 15, 1884. there were 3, ,415 Chinese arrivals at San Francisco, and 17.O8S departures. "Not only" says the judge, sshas the flood of Chinese immigration, with which we were menaced, been stayed, but process of departure has been going on which could not be considerably increased without serious disturba nee to the establish. inl oe ho So kAl hat the wages of Chinese laborers have advanced from $1 to $175 per diem; @ fact of much significance if true. It is much to be re. gretted that the notion that the law has, through it's own defects or the fault of the courts, proved practically imperative, has been so widely and consistently disseminated. Mir. Hit, of Illinois, who made a speech on the anti-Chinese bill in the house, assert ed that the departure of the Chinese from California had caused industrial derangs- ment. The cigar makers of San Francisco, for instance. over 5000 in number, struck for wages so high that lockout snsued, and labor had to be imported from the Atlantic coast.
 All this seems to show that there is no great need Of any more anti-Chinese legisla- tion just now. But as the New York Evening Post points out: It will be well to remember that the Anti-Chinese act was passed nomi- naIly to carry out the provisions of treaty with China, and Judges Nelson and Lowell, in Boston, held that legislation under the treaty could not be held to apply to persons over whom the Emperor of China had no jurisdiction, such as the natives of Hong Kong, a British colony. There are about 100000 of these people, and though they show no special desire to come here, proba- ply preferring the milder laws of Great Britain, the agitators mean to be ready for them should they change their minds: and accordingly the new law provides that ''the provisions of this act shall apply to Chinese, whether subjects of China or any other foreign power"
 But even if no more anti-Chinese legisla- ton is really needed we suppose the passage of the new bill will be good thing for the Republican party's interest on the Pacific coast. It will be interesting to see what the Democratic platform will have to say about the Chinese question.