Morning journal and courier., 1886-04-07
News by Telegraph FROM ALL QUARTERS.
 CHINESE IMMIGRATION. A Message From The
 President. NO CHANGE IN THE STRIKE. Trains Moving Without The
 Knights. 1 A GREAT BLAZE AT LACROSSE. | The Losses Over A Mill
 lion Dollars.
\ GREAT BLAZE AT LACROSSE.
The Losses Over A Mill
 lion Dollars.
TREATY RIGHTS OF THE CHINESE

I
 | TREATY RIGHTS OF THE CHINESE l The President Recommends a Change in the Statute Regarding Immigra- | ton of the CeIestiaIs.
 | WASHINGTON, April 6.-The following is
 the full text of the Presidents message sent l to the Senate to-day respecting the treaty l rights of Chinese subjects:
 ! To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
 I transmit herewith for the consideration | of Congress, with view to appropriate legis lation in the premises, a report of the Score i taTy of State, with certain correspondence touching the treaty right of Chinese subjects 1 other than laborers ''to go and come of their own free will and accord" In my annual 1 message of the 9th of December last I said:
 In the application of the acts lately passed to ex
 ton of Chinese laborers in the United States ndi- vidual cases of hardship have occurred beyond the judicial determination
 These cases of individual hardships are
 due to the ambiguous and definite provisions of the acts of Congress, approved respectively
 on May 6, 1882, and July 5, 1884. The
 hardship has in some cases been remedied by
 
 however, when the phraseology of the
 statutes has appeared to be conclusive
 against any discretion on the part
 of the officers charged with the
 execution of the law Chinese persons ex-
 pressly entitled to free admission under the
 treaty have been refused landing and sent
 back to the country whence they came with
 out being afforded any opportunity to show
 in the courts or otherwise their right to the privilege of free ingress and egress
 which it was the purpose of fhe treaty to +bs edfe;a, tn the tions of the Supreme court of the United States to which have referred the supposi- tion should not be indulged that Congress, while protesting to faithfully execute the treaty stipulations and recognizing the fact that they secure to certain class the right to go from and come to the United States, intended to make its protection depend upon the performance of conditions which it was physically impossible to perform. (U. s. R. 112, P. 554, Chew-Hong v. U. S.)
 The act of July 5, 1884, imposes such an impossible condition in not providing for the admission under proper certificate of Chinese travellers of the exempted classes in the cases most likely to arise in ordinary commercial intercourse. The treaty pro- visions governing the case are as follows:
 Arele sion and dhs sbd aab1p only to Chinese who may go to the United States laborers, other classes not being included in the
 Article 9. Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States teachers students, nler- oT he Ml5n s9er f and go of their own free will and accord and shall n wcg sfe r a e enee and subjects of the most favored nation.''
 Section of the amended Chinese immi- grafton act of 1884 purports to secure the treaty right to the exempted classes named t,y1 If haH if fhaiT status, which certificate shall be prima facie and the sole permissible evidence to estab- fish a right of entry into the United States. But it provides in terms for the issuance of certificates in two cases.
 (a)-Chinese subjects departing from port of China; and
 (bl-Chinese persons G. e: of the Chinese raee) | government other than Chinese, and who may de part for the United States from the ports of such other foreign government.
 A statute is certainly most unusual which, | purporting to execute the provisions of a treaty with China in respect of Chinese sub l jects, enacts strict formalities regards the l subjects of other governments than that of | China. It is sufficient that I should call ths i earnest attention of Congress to the eircum- l stances that the statute makes no provision whatever for the somewhat l numerous class of Chinese persons who re- 1 taining their Chinese subjection in some | countries other than China desire to come l from such countries to the United States. l Chinese merchants have trading operations of magnitude throughout the world. They l do not become citizens or subjects of the | country where they may temporarily reside | and trade; they continue to be subjects of l China and to them the explicit exemption of | the treaty applies. Yet, if such Chinese l subject the head of a mercantile house at | Hong Kong, or Yokohama, or Honolulu, or | Havana or Colon. desires to come from any | of these places to the United States, he is | met with the requirement. that he must pro- l duce & certificate in prescribed form and in | the English tongue issued by the Chinese | government. If there be at the foreign place l of his residence no representative of | the Chinese government competent to | issue a certificate in the prescribed l form he can obtain none and is | under the provisions of the present law un- l justly dsbarred from entry into the United l States His usual Chinese passport will not l suffice, for it is not in the form which the | act prescribes shall be the sole permissible | evidence of his right to land. And he can | obtain no such certificate from the govern | ment of his place of residence, because he is | not a subject or citizen thereof ''at the time" | or at any time.
 There being, therefore, no statutory pro- | vision prescribing the terms upon which l Chinese persons resident in foreign countries, l but not subjects or citizens of such coun- | tries, may prove their status and rights as i members of the exempted class in the ab- | sence of Chinese representative in such l country The Secretary of the Treasury in | whom the execution of the act of July 5, l 1884, was vested undertook to remedy the | omission by directing the revenue officers l to recognize as lawful certificates those is- | sued in favor of Chinese subjects by the | Chinese consular and diplomatic officers at l the foreign port of departure when vised by | the United States representative thereat. | fo ha inst of spirit of the law, although enlarging it's let | ter and in adopting this rule he was con- l trolled by the authority of high ju- l dicial decisions as to what evidence l is necessary to establish the fact that an indi- vidual Chinaman belongs to the exempted | class. He went, however, beyond the spirit | of the act of the judicial decisions by pro | viding in 8 circular dated January IA, 1885, l for the original issuance of such certificate l by the United States consular officer at the l port of departure in the absence ot Chinese diplomatic or consular ! representative thereat For it is clear that l the act of Congress contemplated the inter l yention of the United States consuls only in 1 the supervisory capacity, his function being | to check the proceeding and see that no | abuse of the privilege followed. The power l or duty of the original eerti6cation is wholly 1 distinct from that supervisory func- tion. It either dispenses with the l foreign certificate altogether, Leaving the consular wise to stand alone and sufi- cient, or else it combin in one official act | the distinct functions of certlhcatlon and yer | ifcation of the facts certified. The official character attaching to the consular ,s oertiiea- tion contemplated by the unamended circu- mind It is not merely prima facie evidence of the status of the bearer, such as the courts may admit in their discretion; it was prescribed as an official attestation | on the strength of which the customs officers l at the port of entry were to admit the bearer without further adjudication of his status unless question shall arise as to the truth of the certificate itself It became, therefore, necessary to amend the circular of January IA, 1885, and this was done on the 18th of June following by striking out the clause prescribing original certi6cation of status by United States con suls The effect of this amendment is to deprive any certificate the United States consuls may issue of the value it purported to possess as sole permissible evidence under the statute when it's issuance was prescribed -I.&s< Tt,nro f1 hruv