The Washington critic., 1886-05-04
WASHINGTON, MAY 4, 1886.
oun nrIATIoNs wIru CHINA.

OUR RELATIONS WITH CHINA.
The first treaty between the United
States and China was one of peace,
amity and commerce. 1t was negotia-
ted by u. S. Minister Caleb Cushing.
under Tyler's administration, and was
proclaimed in 1916. Itrelatcd wholly
to the terms on which our citizens
might reside and trade in China. 1t
limited the privilege to five ports which
IL named. The treaty was subject to
modification In twelve years. Accord
ingly, in 1853. under Buchanan ad-
ministration, another similar treaty was
negotiated by L. S. Minister VIM. b.
Reed. Neither treaty contained any
reference to privileges Of Chinese in
the United States. Either the Chinese
Government desired no privileges for
its subjects in the United States or
else 1t took for granted that no treaty
stipulations were necessary to confer
them. The second treaty opened two
additional ports at which our citizens
C0ulu reside anu traue.
The discovery of gold In California
attracted considerable immigration of
Chinese, commencing in 1850. They
were allowed TO mine only rs cleaners
on claims others had passed as un-
profitable, or had worked out and
abandoned. A heavy foreign (alien)
miners tax was imposed by the State,
but enforced almost exclusively upon
the Chinese. There were no very seri
Gus outbreaks against them, because
for long they time interfered with but
few people. Being finally driven more to
the towns, they came in competition with
white laborers, and then the trouble be-
gan. The development of the agri-
cultural resources of the State, so long
retarded by the absorbing chase for
gold, brought further friction in com.
petition for farm work.
The voluntary immigration of Chi
nese would not probably have been
large or persistent in the face of oppo.
sition, but their coming was stimulated
by the dealers in Coolie labor. This
was made the subject of penal legisla-
tion by Congress as early as 1S62-six
years before the Burlingame treaty
was entered into. The act defined the
"Coolie trade" to be "the procuring
from any port or place the subjects OF
China, Japan, or of any other Oriental
country known as Coolies, to be trans
ported to any foreign port or place tc
be disposed Of, or sold, or transferred
for any time, as servants or appren.
tices, or to be held to service or labor.
This statute never was enforced. Ii
letter to the chairman of the House
Committee on Pacific Railroads in May
1874, G. p. Huntington, vice president
of the Central Pacific Railroad Com
pany, speaking of the Construction
Company consisting of himself ant
associates in the railroad directory
and its work, said; ut import6d a larg,
number of laborers from China-som
eight or ten thousand-and prosecuted
the work much more advantageous,
than before" A "coolie" is define,
to be "a hired laborer.
This Wholesale competition of i'm
ported coolie labor led to mob attacl
on the Chinese at San Francisco earl
in 1867. This was followed by anti
coolie organizations for the avowe
purpose of inaugurating the policy noy
known as boycotting. This was mad
an issue in the State election that year
and the anti Chinese sentiment carrie
the State for the Democratic party.
This should have been accepted 6
an adnionition that the European an
Mongolian races could not PEACEFUL
contend for the labor market of tn
Pacific coast. II would have been a
easy thing then for our Government I
prohibit the immigration of Chimes
laborers, for, by the then existin
treaty, Americans were only allowed {
seven ports In China, and the occup,
tions they might pursue were much n
stricted. But in 1868 our Minister I
China, Anson Burlingame, resigned
accepted the appointment of MintStt
from, China TO the United States, ant
as such Minister, came to Washingto
with Chinese associates and negotiate
new treaty with Mr.. Seward the
Secretary of State under Andre
johnson.
In its next reference TO the subject {
our Chinese relations, The CRITIC wi
pay its attention to the Burlingau
treaty.
AsTo THE subsidy question in til
Senate yesterday, Mr.. Eustis of Lou
lana clearly had the best of the argi
ment He cannot understand how
>, man can consistently vote a guarantC
of $37, 900, 900 to private corporatio
to help II build ship railway and
the same time refuse the aid of I'll
Government to help build up our d
cayed and neglected mercantile marin
Between free ships and steamship sui
sides he holds there is no antagonisu
Says Mr.. Eustis:
"France has free ships to-day, and y
rance subsidies steamship lines to u
mount Of s., $4,000 year. Germany Ii
zee ships to-day, and yet Germany sub