The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-03-05
MEMPHIS APPEAL.
FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1856.
TMECAsR AGAINST tn UNITED
ETATRa

hIAIEs.
When the United States secured
the Burlingame treaty with the Chi.
nese, it was welcomed as a great &C.
QUESTION by our people, and other ma
tons FASTENED their efforts to secure
similar privileges. When in the
course Of time our people on the Pa
cific coast found that portion OF the
treaty was unacceptable to them, tina!
fact did not release the Unitsd States
from its obligations as long as the
treaty imposed them. The only thing
we could do was 10 submit TO the con-
ditions OF the treaty, or to abrogate It,.
The first treaty we had with China,
concluded by Caleb Cushing, pledged
al to peace and cordial amity with the
Government and between their peo-
pie respectively without exception OF
persons or places" 1t required that
United States citizens in China, and
their property, should enjoy special
protection and be defended from In
suit or injury force to be sent to de-
fend them II attacked by mobs, and
the offenders punished. In words no
corresponding pro.eCtionIwas made for
the ChiRese in this country; in a civ
allied land neither party to the treaty
regarded 1t as necessary, but in spirit
the obligation is, Of course, equal on
both sides. The Burlingame treaty
recognized mems right to change their
homes and allegiance, and their right
to pass from one country to the other
"for spurposes Of curiosity, OF trade,
or IS permanent residents" the
Chinese Of the United States to enjoy
the same privileges az those accorded
TO the most favored nation. Twelve
years afterwards, owing to the rush OF
Chinese to California, our government
asked Of the Chinese government some
Limitation, the request stating with
respect to the Chinese then in this
country, that We recognize the duty
ito maintain them in their treaty
privileges against any opposition,
whether II take the shape OF popular
violence or OF legislative enactment"
In 1880 the treaty on this subject was
concluded. In it;the United States en-
gagged for the Chinese then in the
country, to exert all its powers to de.
wise measures for their protection, and
to secure them In their rights" In
October, 1880, a mob at Denver killed
an uncfIending Chinaman, wounded
Others, and destroyed much Chinese
property. The Chinese government
demanded reparation, when Mr..
Evarts, Secretary Of State, made the
strange reply that Colorado, being a
sovereign State, was alone RESPONSE
BILE, and the United States Govern.
ment could neither punish The guilty
ror make amends for their offenses.
The strange part Of this reply con
sisted in the denial of the power of
our government to do what IL had en-
gagged by treaty that it would do. The
Chinese Minister naturally replied
that the treaty his government had
made was with the United States, not
with Colorado, statement that Mr..
Evarts made no reply to. The subject
was renewed when Mr.. Blaine became
Secretary, when that interruptions
gentleman honored his country by as.
sorting the Chinese were bound 10
protect Americans in China, but the
treaty did not require that the United
States should give similar protection
to the Chinese within its borders.
This declaration induced the Chinese
haters to believe they had those peo-
pie at their meIcy-or at the want Of
that virtue-and what has followed in
the attacks upon, the plunderings and
murderings Of the Chinese, is the con-
sequence. Yet the constitution de-
clares treaties to be a portion OF the
supreme law Of the land. Secretary
Bayard, in December last, wrote to
Gov. Stonema1 of California urging
preventive measures against violence
to the Chinese, as the Chinese Minis
ter had made complaint. Stoneman
had the hardihood in reply to write:
"There has not been a single act of
violence toward the Chinese in this
State brought to my knowledge" Re-
fening to the suggestion Of the
Chinese Minister about preserving
order in the State, he added:
I'VE are capable Of performing that
duty without gratuitous suggestions
from that quarter" Taking the facts
here stated, has the Christian United
States acted with justice and integrity
toward heather China? Has II justi.
ded the claim Of the United States
that it stands clear Of the tricky policy
and discreditlbls breaches of public
laithI o! which the European mon.
srohies have SO often. been guilty
Gould Washington and the other faith
8rs Of our republic meet I p Washing
ION to-day, and have the facts here
presented laid before them, would
hey approved Would they say that
inch deeds and such craftsmanship